Skip to main content

Full text of "Bulletin of zoological nomenclature"

See other formats


The 



Bulletin 

of . 

Zoological 
Nomenclature 



The Official Periodical 



of the International Commission 



Published on behalf of the Commission by 

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 

c/o The Natural History Museum 

Cromwell Road 

London, SWT 5BD, U.K. 




on Zoological Nomenclature 



Volume 47, 1990 



ISSN 0007-5167 

® International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 



I 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Page 

Notices . . • 1 

Election of the Vice-President of the International Commission on Zoological 

Nomenclature 2 

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and its publications . . 2 

Addresses of members of the Commission 3 

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 4 

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology-Supplement 5 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 5 

Instructions to Authors 5 

Applications 

Pleuractis Verrill, 1864 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): proposed designation of Fungia 
paumotensis Stutchbury, 1833 as the type species, with conservation of Lobactis 
Verrill, 1 864. B. W. Hoeksema 6 

CYMATiiNAE Ircdalc, 1913 (1854) (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and cymatiinae Walton 
in Hutchinson, 1940 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposal to remove the homonymy. 
A. Jansson & A. G. Beu 9 

Limax fibratus Martyn, 1 784 et Nerita hebraea Martyn, 1 786 (actuellement Placostylus 
fibratus et Natica hebraea., Mollusca, Gastropoda): conservation proposee pour les 
noms specifiques; et Placostylus Beck, 1837: designation proposee de L. fibratus 
comme espece-type. P. Bouchet 12 

Proptera Rafinesque, 1819 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): proposed conservation. M. E. 

Gordon 19 

Mirochernes Beier, 1930 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): proposed confirmation of 

Chelanops dentatus Banks, 1895 as the type species. M. S. Harvey 22 

Holostaspis subbadius var. robustulus Berlese, 1904 (currently Macrocheles robustulus; 
Arachnida, Acarina): proposed conservation as the correct spelling of the specific 
name. R. B. Halhday 24 

Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 (Crustacea, Isopoda): proposed precedence over 

Palaega Woodward, 1870. J. W. Martin & H. G. Kuck 27 

Carcinochelis Fieber, 1861 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed designation of 
Carcinochelis alutaceus Handlirsch, 1897 as the type species. R. C. Froeschner & 
N. A.Kormilev 30 

Stetio attenuatus Gray, 1846 (currently Stenella attenuata; Mammalia, Cetacea): 

proposed conservation of the specific name. W. F. Perrin 32 

Mammuthus Brookes, 1828 (Mammalia, Proboscidea): proposed conservation, and 
Elephas primigenius Blumenbach, 1799 (currently Mammuthus primigenius): pro- 
posed designation as the type species o( Mammuthus, and designation of a neotyj^e. 
W. E. Garutt, Anthea Gentry & A. M. Lister 38 

Note and Comments 

On Borelis de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) and the neotype of its type species. 

P. K. Tubbs 45 

On the proposed fixation of type species for Larnaudia and Ranguna Bott, 1966 

(Crustacea, Decapoda). P. K. L. Ng; L. B. Holthuis 45 

On the proposed designation of Lecanium coffeae Walker, 1852 as the type species of 

Sa«.vf//fl Deplanchc, 1859 (Insecta, Homoptera). G. De Lotto; C. Hodgson ... 47 
On the proposed precedence of Culicoides puncticollis (Becker, 1903) over 

C. algecirensis (Strobl, 1900) (Insecta, Diptera). R. W. Crosskey 48 

On the proposed conservation of Callionymus pusillus Delaroche, 1809 (Osteichthyes, 

Perciformes). A. Wheeler; R. Fricke 48 

On the proposed designation of a neotype for Elephas primigenius (currently 

Mammuthus primigenius; Mammalia, Proboscidea). H. D. Kahlke; A. V. Sher; Alan 

Gentry; A. P. Currant 51 



II 



Rulings of the Commission 

Opinion 1567. Nonion de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida): Nautilus faba Fichtel & 

Moll, 1 798 designated as the type species 53 

Opinion 1568. //a«zflwflza Asano, 1944 (Foraminiferida): conserved 55 

Opinion 1569. Ca/carma d'Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): conserved 57 

Opinion 1570. Dendritina d'Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): conserved 59 

Opinion 1 571 . Planularia Defrance, 1826 (Foraminiferida): conserved 60 

Opinion 1572. Nautilus repandus Fichtel & Moll, 1798 (currently Eponides repandus; 

Foraminiferida): neotype replaced by rediscovered holotype 62 

Opinion 1573. Madrepora Umax Esper, 1797 (currently Herpolitha Umax) and Fungia 

talpina Lamarck, 1801 (currently Polyphyllia talpina; both Cnidaria, Anthozoa): 

specific names conserved 63 

Opinion 1574. Sphaeroma hookeri Leach, 1814 (currently Lekanesphaera hookeri; 

Crustacea, Isopoda): specific name conserved 65 

Opinion 1575. Coe«otofl Latreille, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda): conserved . ... 67 
Opinion 1576. Palaemon longirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea, Decapoda): 

specific name conserved 69 

Opinion 1577. Hydrobius Leach, 1815 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Dytiscus fuscipes 

Linnaeus, 1758 conserved as type species, and Berosus Leach, 1817 (Insecta, 

Coleoptera): conserved 71 

Opinion 1578. Vespa triangulum Fabricius, 1775 (currently Philanthus triangulum; 

Insecta, Hymenoptera): specific name conserved 73 

Opinion 1579. Pycinaster magnificus Spencer, 1913 (Echinodermata, Asteroidea): 

specific name conserved 74 

Opinion 1580. Cordylodus? dubius Rhodes, 1953 (currently Distomodus dubius; 

Conodonta): specific name conserved 75 

Opinion 1581. Hydrolycus Miiller & Troschel, 1844 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): 

Hydrocyon scomberoides Cuvier, 1819 confirmed as the type species 76 

Opinion 1582. Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): conserved . 77 
Opinion 1583. Scorpaenichthys marmoratus (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes): Ayres, 

1 854 to be taken as the author of the specific name 79 

Opinion 1584. Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): Silurus lividus 

Rafinesque, 1 820 designated as the type species 81 

Opinion 1585. Ascalabotes gigas Bocage, 1875 (currently Tarentola gigas; Reptilia, 

Squamata): specific name conserved 83 

Opinion 1586. Euryotis brantsii A. Smith, 1834 (currently Parotomys brantsii; 

Mammalia, Rodentia): specific name conserved 84 

Notices 85 

Call for nominations for new members of the International Commission on Zoological 

Nomenclature 86 

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology-Supplement 87 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 87 

General Articles 

Bully for Brontosaurus. Stephen Jay Gould 88 

Family-group names in fishes: grammatical nicety or pragmatism? A plea for stability. 
Alwyne Wheeler 97 

Applications 

Helix (Helicigona) barbata Ferussac, 1832 (currently Lindholmiola barbata; Mollusca, 

Gastropoda): proposed confirmation of lectotype designation. D. Kadolsky . . . 101 
ris.scxjiiji;a (or rissoacha) Gray, 1847 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed precedence 

over TRUNCATELLOiDEA (or truncatellacea) Gray, 1840. G. Rosenberg & G. M. 

Davis 104 

Mytilus analinus Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Anodonta anatina; Mollusca, Bivalvia): 

proposed designation of a ncotypc. P. B. Mordan & F. R. Woodward 110 



Griffithides Portlock, 1843 (Trilobita): proposed confirmation of Griffithides longiceps 

Portlock, 1843 as the type species, so conserving Bollandia Reed, 1943. G. Hahn 114 

Longitarsus symphyti Heikertinger, 1912 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation 

of the specific name. L. Borowiec 117 

/lran?/;o/?/!?/?fl/ww5van Hasselt inTemminck, 1824(Osteichthyes,Cypriniformes): pro- 
posed conservation, and proposed designation of Cobitis kuhlii Valenciennes in 
Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1846 as the type species. M. E. Burridge, D. J. Siebert & 

C. Ferraris 118 

Trionyx sinensis Wiegmann, 1 834 (Reptilia, Testudines): proposed conservation of the 

specific name. R. G. Webb 122 

Comments 

On the adoption of 'Protected Works' for purposes of zoological nomenclature. 

D. Frost 124 

On the proposed conservation of the generic name Myriochele Malmgren, 1867 

(Annehda, Polychaeta). R. T. Becker; A. Mackie; S. Chambers 124 

On the proposed precedence oi Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901 (Arachnida, Araneae) over 

Rhechostica Simon, 1892. R. J. Raven 126 

On the proposed designation of Fonscolombia graminis Lichtenstein, 1877 as the type 

species of Fonscolombia Lichtenstein, 1877, with an additional proposal to suppress 

the names Tychea Koch, 1857 and T. graminis Koch, 1857 (Insecta, Homoptera). 

E. M. Danzig; P. K. Tubbs 127 

On the valid name for the butterfly known as 'Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905' 

or 'Colias australis Verity, 1911' (Insecta, Lepidoptera). L. B. Holthuis; E. J. 

Reissinger & S. Wagener; O. Kudrna; W. G. Tremewan; P. K. Tubbs 129 

On the proposed conservation oi heraclei as the correct spelling for the specific name of 

Musca heraclii Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Diptera). F. C. Thompson; I. M. White. . 132 
On the proposed conservation of Physcus Howard, 1895 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) by 

the suppression of Coccobius Ratzeburg, 1852. G. Gibson & J. Huber; G. Viggiani; 

D. Rosen; J. LaSalle 134 

On the need for stabihty in fish family-group names. N. Merrett 138 

On the proposed confirmation of Muraena helena Linnaeus, 1 758 as the type species 

of Muraena Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes, Anguilliformes), so conserving Anguilla. 

A. Wheeler; F. C. Thompson; R. A. Cooper 138 

On the proposed suppression for nomenclature of three works by R. W. Wells & C. R. 

Wellington. P. Bouchet, R. Bour, A. Dubois, D. Goujet, J. P. Hugot, J. Pierre & 

S. Tilher 139 

Rulings of the Commission 

Opinion 1587. Orbitolina d'Orbigny, 1850 (Foraminiferida): Orbulites concava 

Lamarck, 1816 confirmed as the type species 141 

Opinion 1588. Hapalorhynchus beadlei Goodman, 1987 (Trematoda, Digenea): 

holotype replaced by a lectotype 143 

Opinion 1589. Phyllodoce (Carobia) rubiginosa Saint-Joseph, 1888 (currently also 

A^e> e;/7/zy//a n/^)zg/«05a; Annehda, Polychaeta): specific name conserved .... 144 
Opinion 1590. Pleuromma princeps Scott, 1894 (currently Gaussia princeps; Crustacea, 

Copepoda): specific name conserved 145 

Opinion 1591. Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980 (Crustacea, Decapoda): 

Troglocarcinus heimi Fize & Serene, 1956 confirmed as the type species 147 

Opinion 1592. Bodotria Goodsir, 1843 (Crustacea, Cumacea): conserved 148 

Opinion 1593. Iphinoe Bate, 1856 (Crustacea, Cumacea): conserved 150 

Opinion 1594. Leucon Kroyer, 1846 (Crustacea, Cumacea): conserved 152 

Opinion 1595. Aleitropteryx Low, 1885 (Insecta, Neuroptera): Aleuropteryx loewii 

Klapalak, 1 894 designated as the type species 153 

Opinion 1596. S'ewfe/w Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Trichoptera): Phryganea phalaenoides 

Linnaeus, 1758 conserved as the type species, thus conserving Sialis Latreille, 1802 

(Insecta, Megaloptera) 1 54 



IV 



opinion 1597. Coryphium angusticolle Stephens, 1834 (Insecta, Coleoptera): generic 

and specific names conserved 1 56 

Opinion 1598. Ophonus Dejean, 1821 and Tachys Dejean, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera): 

Carabus sabulicola Panzer, 1 796 and Tachys scutellaris Stephens, 1 828 designated as 

the respective type species 158 

Opinion 1599. Papilio carthami Hiibner, [1813] and Syrichthus serratulae major 

Staudinger, 1 879 (currently both in Pyrgus; Insecta, Lepidoptera): the specific names 

carthami and major conserved 1 60 

Opinion 1600. Tachina orbata Wiedemann, 1830 (currently Peribaea orbata; Insecta, 

Diptera): neotype designation confirmed 161 

Opinion 1601. Rapport sur les Myodaires du Docteur Robineau Desvoidy (1826): 

suppressed for nomenclatural purposes 162 

Opinion 1602. Tenthredo zonula Klug, 1817 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): specific name 

conserved 163 

Opinion 1603. Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824 (Osteichthyes, Saccopharyngiformes): 

conserved 1 64 

Opinion 1604. ichthyophiidae Taylor, 1968 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona): conserved . 166 
Opinion 1605. Thorius pennatulus Cope, 1869 (Amphibia, Caudata): specific name 

conserved 168 

Opinion 1606. Semioptera wallacii Gray , 1859 (Aves, paradisaeidae): conserved as the 

correct spelling of the generic and specific names 1 69 

Opinion 1607. Mus musculus domes ticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943 (Mammalia, 

Rodentia): specific name conserved 171 

Notices 173 

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature-Crustacea and Mollusca Offprints 1 74 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 1 74 

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology-Supplement 1 74 

Applications 

Thalassochernes Beier, 1940 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): proposed designation of 

Chelifer taierensis With, 1907 as the type species. M. S. Harvey 176 

Artemia franciscana Kellogg, 1906 (Crustacea, Branchiopoda): proposed conservation 

of the specific name. D. Belk & S. T. Bowen 178 

Dalla Mabille, 1904 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation. S. R. Steinhauser, 

L. D. Miller, J. Y. Miller & C. A. Bridges 184 

Calliphora vicina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation 
of the specific name. K. Rognes & R. E. Blackith 187 

Rivulus marmoratus Poey, 1 880 (Osteichthyes, Cyprinodontiformes): proposed conser- 
vation of the specific name. K. J. Lazara & M. L. Smith 191 

Coccyzus euleri Cabanis, 1873 (Aves, Cuculiformes): proposed conservation of the 
specific name. E. O. WiUis & Y. Oniki 195 

Phororhacos Ameghino, 1889 (Aves, Gruiformes): proposed conservation. L. M. 
Chiappe & M. F. Soria 198 

Comments 

On the proposed conservation of Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784 and Nerita hebraea 
Martyn, 1786 (currently Placostylus fibratus and Natica hebraea; Mollusca, 
Gastropoda). R. T. Abbott; P. Bouchet; A. Gentry; R. Giannuzzi-Savelh .... 202 

On the proposed precedence of polygyridae Pilsbry, 1894 over mesodontidae Tryon, 

1866 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). G. Rosenberg & K. C. Emberton 204 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Texigryphaea pitcheri (Morton, 

1834). (Mollusca, Bivalvia). R. W. Scott 205 

On the proposed conservation of Proptera Rafinesque, 1819 (Mollusca, Bivalvia). 
A. H. Clarke; A. E. Bogan, J. D. Williams & S. L. H. Fuller 205 

On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Aphrodita imbricata Linnaeus, 
1767 (currently Harmothoe imbricata) and Aphrodita minuta Fabricius, 1780 



V 



(currently Pholoe minuta) (Annelida, Polychaeta). M. E. Petersen; S. Chambers & 

D. Heppell 207 

On the proposed precedence oi Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901 (Arachnida, Araneae) over 

Rhechostica Simon, 1892. H. W. Levi & O. Kraus 211 

On the proposed conservation of Ixodes angustus Neumann, 1899 and /. woodi 

Bishopp, 1911 (Arachnida, Acari) by replacement of the holotype of /. angustus. 

G. B.White 211 

On the conservation of the spelling of the specific name of Macrocheles robustulus 

(Berlese, 1904) (Arachnida, Acarina). R. C. Axtell et al 212 

On the proposed conservation of Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 (Crustacea, 

Isopoda). J. Forest 212 

On the proposed designation oi Lysianax cubensis Stebbing, 1897 as the type species of 

Shoemakerella Pirlot, 1936 (Crustacea, Amphipoda). R. C. Brusca; M. H. Thurston 213 
On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Curculio viridicollis Fabricius, 

1792 (currently Phyllobius viridicollis; Insecta, Coleoptera). M. A. Alonso-Zarazaga; 

P. K.Tubbs 213 

On the proposed precedence of Culicoides puncticollis (Becker, 1903) over 

C. algecirensis (Strobl, 1900) (Insecta, Diptera). G. B. White 214 

On the proposed suppression of Culex peus Speiser, 1 904 to conserve C. stigmatosoma 

Dyar, 1907 and C. thriambus Dyar, 1921 (Insecta, Diptera). G. B. White; D. 

Strickman 215 

On the proposed confirmation of Griffithides longiceps Portlock, 1843 as the type 

species of Griffithides Portlock, 1843 (Trilobita). Sir J. Stubblefield; H. B. 

Whittington 216 

Rulings of the Commission 

Opinion 1608. Marssonopora Lang, 1914 (Bryozoa, Cheilostomata): Membranipora 

(ie««5/7i>2fl Levinsen, 1925 designated as the type species 217 

Opinion 1609. Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 and Hyphoplites Spath, 1922 (Mollusca, 

Ammonoidea): conserved 218 

Opinion 1610. ValanginitesSayn 'm¥A\ian, 1910 (Mollusca, Ammonoidea): authorship 

of the genus confirmed, and Ammonites nucleus Roemer, 1841 confirmed as the type 

species 220 

Opinion 1611. Heliophanus kochii Simon, 1868 (Arachnida, Araneae): specific name 

conserved 222 

Opinion \ 6\2.A ttus penicillatus Simon, 1875 (currently Sitticus penicillatus; Arachnida, 

Araneae): specific name conserved 224 

Opinion 1613. Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898: conserved, and 

Pseudaugaptilus longiremis Sars, 1907: specific name conserved (both Crustacea, 

Copepoda) 226 

Opinion 1614. Tra/jez/a Latreille, 1828 (Crustacea, Decapoda): conserved .... 228 
Opinion 1615. trapeziidae Miers, 1886 (Crustacea, Decapoda) and trapeziidae 

Lamy, 1920 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): homonymy removed 229 

Opinion 1616. Ptochus Schonherr, 1826 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Ptochus porcellus 

Boheman in Schonherr, 1834 confirmed as the type species 231 

Opinion 1617. Rosema Walker, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): given precedence over 

Ze//caHubner, [1825] and ^/iogfl/zoHubner, [1825] 233 

Opinion 1618. Protocalliphora Hough, 1899 (Insecta, Diptera) and its type species 

Musca azurea Fallen, 1817: usage conserved by the designation of a replacement 

lectotype 235 

Opinion 1619. Euribia jaceana Hering, 1935 (currently Urophora jaceana; Insecta, 

Diptera): specific name given precedence over ^wn^/a cowjFZfle Hering, 1933 . . . 237 
Opinion 1620. Monograptus exiguus (Graptolithina): accepted usage conserved by 

citation of Lapworth ( 1 876) as author 238 

Opinion 1621. Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes, Osteoglossiformes): 

Osteoglossum bicirrhosum Cmier, 1829 designated as the type species 239 



VI 



Notices 241 

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature-Crustacea and Mollusca Offprints 242 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 242 

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology-Supplement 242 

Financial Report for 1989 244 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature — General Session of the 

Commission, University of Maryland, 4 July 1990 246 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature — Open Meeting of the 

Commission, University of Maryland, 5 July 1990 250 

Applications 

Lepidomenia Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883 (Mollusca, Solenogastres): proposed desig- 
nation of Lepidomenia hystrix Marion & Kowalevsky in Fischer, 1885 as the type 
species 254 

Helicarion Ferussac, 1821 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation, and 

proposed designation of Helixarion cuvieri Ferussac, 1821 as the type species. . . 258 

//flmwa^fl Leach, [1820] (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation .... 263 

Kobeltia Seibert, 1873 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed confirmation of Arion 
hortensis Ferussac, 1819 as the type species 270 

Strophomena de Blainville, 1825 (Brachiopoda): proposed designation of Leptaena 
/7/a«MW^)o«a Hall, 1847 as the type species 274 

HOMALOPTERiDAE Bleeker, 1859 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): proposed precedence 

over BALiTORiDAE Swainson, 1839 277 

Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed fixation of masculine 
gender for the name 280 

Rana sphenocephala Cope, 1886 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed precedence over Rana 

M/ncM/anM5 Harlan, 1826 283 

Comments 

On the proposed placement of hydrobiidae Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) on 

the Official List of Family-Group Names 286 

On the proposed conservation of Fryeria Gray, 1853 and F. rueppelii Bergh, 1869 

(Mollusca, Gastropoda) 288 

On the proposed precedence of Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 (Crustacea, 

Isopoda) over Pfl/aega Woodward, 1870 290 

On the proposed conservation of Griffithides Portlock, 1843 and Bollandia Reed, 1943 

(Trilobita) 293 

On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Culex stigmatosoma Dyar, 1907 

and C. thriambus Dyar, 1921 (Insecta, Diptera) 293 

On the stability of fish family names 295 

On the proposed confirmation of the speUing of liparidae Gill, 1861 (Osteichthyes, 

Scorpaeniformes) 296 

On the proposed precedence of Rana sphenocephala Cope, 1886 (Amphibia, Anura) 

over R. utricularius Harlan, 1 826 298 

Ruling of the Commission 

Opinion 1622. Heliastes ovalis Steindachner, 1900 (currently Chromis ovalis; 

Osteichthyes, Perciformes): specific name conserved 300 

Indexes, etc. 

Authors in volume 47 (1990) 301 

Names and Works placed on Official Lists and Indexes in rulings of the Commission 

pubHshed in volume 47 (1990) 303 

Key names in Applications and Comments published in volume 47 (1990) .... 307 

Corrigenda 311 

Publication dates and pagination of volume 47 ( 1 990) 311 

Instructions to binder 311 

Table ofContentsofvolume 47 (1990) I 



Volume 47, Part 1, 27 March 1990 pp. 1-84 ISSN 0007-5167 



IBi HI 



The 

Bulletin 

of 

Zoological 
Nomenclature 




BRiTiSH .v1Uo. 

I - PI- 



llCZ^JS ^jrhe Official Periodical 
of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 



THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a 
charity (no. 21 1944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 1990 is £65 or 
$125, postage included. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to: 
The Executive Secretary, 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 
c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, 

London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 071-938 9387) 



INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



Officers 
President 
Vice-President 
Secretary-General 
Executive Secretary 



Prof Dr O. Kraus {Fed. Rep. Germany) 
Dr H. G. Cogger {Australia) 
Dr I. W. B. Nye {United Kingdom) 
Dr P. K. Tubbs {United Kingdom) 



Members 

Dr F. M. Bayer {U.S.A.; Corallia) 
Prof W. J. Bock {U.S.A.; Ornithology) 
Dr L. R. M. Cocks {U.K.; Brachiopoda) 
Dr H. G. Cogger {Australia; Herpetology) 
Prof J. O. Corliss {U.S.A.; Protista) 
Prof C. Dupuis {France; Heteroptera) 
ProfDrG. Hahn 

{Fed. Rep. Germany; Trilohita) 
Prof Dr O. Halvorsen 

{Norway; Parasitology) 
Mr D. Heppell {U.K.; Mollusca) 
Dr L. B. Holthuis 

{The Netherlands; Crustacea) 
Dr Z. Kabata {Canada; Copepoda) 
ProfDrG. Kraus 

{Fed. Rep. Germany; Arachnology) 
Dr P. T. Lehtinen {Finland; Arachnology) 
Dr E. Macpherson {Spain; Crustacea) 



Dr V. Mahnert 

{Switzerland; Ichthyology) 
Prof U. R. Martins de Souza 

{Brazil; Coleoptera) 
Prof A. Minelli {Italy; Myriapoda) 
Dr M. Mroczkowski {Poland; Coleoptera) 
Dr C. Nielsen {Denmark; Bryozoa) 
Dr I. W. B. Nye {U.K.; Lepidoptera) 
Dr W. D. L. Ride {Australia; Mammalia) 
Prof J. M. Savage {U.S.A.; Herpetology) 
Prof Dr R. Schuster {Austria; Acari) 
Dr Y. I. Starobogatov 

{U.S.S.R.; Mollusca) 
Dr F. C. Thompson ([/.5.yi.; Diptera) 
Dr V. A. Trjapitzin 

{U.S.S.R.; Hymenoptera) 
Dr Shun-Ichi Ueno {Japan; Entomology) 
ProfA.Wilhnk 

{Argentina; Hymenoptera) 



Secretariat 

Dr P. K. Tubbs {Executive Secretary and Editor) 

Mr J. D. D. Smith, B.Sc, B.A. {Scientific Administrator) 

Miss R. A. Cooper, B.Sc. {Zoologist) 

Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. {Zoologist) 



Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 

Prof H. B. Whittington, F.R.S. {Chairman) 

Dr M. K. Howarth {Secretary and Managing Director) 

® International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1990 



BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



Volume 47, part 1 (pp. 1-84) 27 March 1990 



Notices 

(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorized to vote on apphcations 
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their pubU- 
cation, but this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Any 
zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to send his 
contribution to the Executive Secretary of the Commission as quickly as possible. 

(b) Invitation to contribute general articles. At present the Bulletin comprises mainly 
applications concerning names of particular animals or groups of animals, resulting 
comments and the Commission's eventual rulings (Opinions). Proposed amendments 
to the Code are also published for discussion. 

Articles or notes of a more general nature are actively welcomed provided that they 
raise nomenclatural issues, although they may well deal with taxonomic matters for 
illustrative purposes. It should be the aim of such contributions to interest an audience 
wider than some small group of specialists. 

(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received 
since going to press for volume 46, part 4 (published on 19 December 1989): 

(1) Anas arcuata Horsfield, 1824 (currently Dendrocygna arcuata; Aves, 
Anseriformes): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2746). G.F. 
Mees. 

(2) Strophomena Blainville, 1825 (Brachiopoda): proposed adoption of authorship 
and designation of Leptaena planumbona Hall, 1847 as the type species. (Case 
2747). L.R.M. Cocks. 

(3) Plusia falcifera Kirby, 1837 (currently Anagrapha falcifera; Insecta, 
Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2748). J.D. 
Lafontaine & R.W. Poole. 

(4) Eristalis Latreille, IS04,, Helophilus Meigen, 1822 and Xylota Meigen, 1822 
(Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation. (Case 2749). T. Zatwarnicki. 

(5) Epizoanthus Gray, 1867 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): proposed conservation. (Case 
2750). J.S. Ryland & A. Muirhead. 

(6) Paolia vetusta Smith, 1871 (Insecta, Protorthoptera): proposed rejection of the 
neotype following rediscovery of the holotype. (Case 2751). C.G. Maples. 

(d) Rulings of the Commission. Each Opinion, Declaration or Direction published in 
the Bulletin constitutes an official ruling of the International Commission on Zoologi- 
cal Nomenclature, by virtue of the votes recorded, and comes into force on the day of 
publication of the Bulletin. 



2 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



Election of the Vice-President of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

The members of the Commission have elected Dr H.G. COGGER as Vice-President. 

Dr Cogger is from the Australian Museum, Sydney, and was elected to the 
Commission in 1976. His research concerns the reptiles and amphibians of Australia 
and the western Pacific region. 



The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
and its publications 

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was established in 1895 
by the III International Congress of Zoology, and at present consists of 28 zoologists 
from 19 countries whose interests cover most of the principal divisions (including 
palaeontology) of the animal kingdom. The Commission is under the auspices of the 
International Union of Biological Sciences (lUBS), and its members are elected at open 
meetings held in conjunction with Congresses of lUBS or of its associated bodies. 
Casual vacancies may be filled between Congresses. Nominations for membership may 
be sent to the Commission Secretariat at any time. 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature has one fundamental aim, which 
is to provide 'the maximum universality and continuity in the scientific names of 
animals compatible with the freedom of scientists to classify all animals according 
to taxonomic judgements'. The latest (Third) Edition was published in 1985 by the 
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, acting on behalf of the Commission. 
Suggested amendments to the Code should be sent to the Secretariat. 

Observance of the rules in the Code enables a biologist to arrive at the valid name for 
any animal taxon between and including the ranks of subspecies and super-family. Its 
provisions can be waived or modified in their application to a particular case when 
strict adherence would cause confusion; however, this must never be done by an indi- 
vidual but only by the Commission, acting on behalf of all zoologists. The Commission 
takes such action in response to proposals submitted to it; applications should follow 
the instructions on the inside back cover of the Bulletin, and assistance will be given by 
the Secretariat. 

The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature is published four times each year. It con- 
tains applications for Commission action, as described above; their publication is an 
invitation for any person to contribute comments or counter-suggestions, which may 
also be published. The Commission makes a ruling (called an Opinion) on a case only 
after a suitable period for comments. All Opinions are published in the Bulletin, 
which also contains articles and notes relevant to zoological nomenclature; such 
contributions may be sent to the Secretariat. 

The Commission's rulings are summarised in The Official Lists and Indexes of Names 
and Works in Zoology; a single volume covering the period 1895-1985 was pubhshed in 
1987, and a free supplement covering 1986-1988 was issued in 1989. Copies may be 
obtained from the Secretariat. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



3 



In addition to dealing with applications and other formal matters, the Commission's 
Secretariat is willing to help with advice on any question which may have nomen- 
clatural (as distinct from purely taxonomic) impHcations. 

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature is a charity (non-profit making 
company) registered in the U.K. The Secretariat of the Commission is at present based 
in London, and the Trust is established there for legal reasons to handle the financial 
affairs of the Commission. The sale of publications {Code, Bulletin and Official Lists 
and Indexes) covers only part of the costs of the service given to zoology by the 
Commission. Support is given by academies, research councils, associations and 
societies from a number of countries, and also by individuals, but despite this assistance 
the level of income remains a severe restraint and donations to the Trust are gratefully 
received. 



Addresses of members of the Commission . < 

Dr F.M. BAYER U.S. National Museum of Natural History . Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A. 
Prof W.J. BOCK Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, 
U.S.A. 

Dr L.R.M. COCKS The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. 
Dr H.G. COGGER Australian Museum, P.O. Box A285, Sydney South, N.S. W. 2000, Australia 
(Vice-President) 

Prof J.O. CORLISS P.O. Box 53008, Albuquerque. New Mexico 87153, U.S.A. (Councillor) 
Prof C. DUPUIS Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue de Bujfon, 75005 Paris, France 
Prof Dr G. HAHN Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, D-355 Marburg ( Lahn ) , Fed. Rep. Germany 
Prof Dr O. HALVORSEN Zoological Museum, Sars GT, 1. N-0562 Oslo 5, Norway 
Mr D. HEPPELL Department of Natural History, Royal Museum of Scotland, Chambers Street, 

Edinburgh EHl IJF, U.K. (Councillor) 
Dr L.B. HOLTHUIS Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The 

Netherlands (Councillor) 
Dr Z. KABATA Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Pacific Biological Station, 

Nanaimo, B.C., V9R5K6. Canada 
Prof Dr O. KRAUS Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, 2000 Hamburg 13, Fed. 

Rep. Germany (President) 
Dr P.T. LEHTINEN Zoological Museum, Department of Biology, University of Turku, SF-20500 

Turku 50, Finland 

Dr E. MACPHERSON Instituto de Ciencias del Mar, Paseo Nacional, s/n, 08003 Barcelona, 
Spain 

Dr V. MAHNERT Museum d'Histoire naturelle. Case postal 434, CH-1211 Geneve, Switzerland 
Prof U.R. MARTINS DE SOUZA Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Caixa 

Postal 7172, 01051 Sao Paulo, Brazil 
Prof A. MINELLI Dipartimento di Biologia, Universita di Padova, Via Trieste 75, 35121 Padova, 

Italy 

Dr M. MROCZKOWSKI Instytut Zoologii, Polska Akademia Nauk, id. Wilcza 64, Warsaw, 
Poland 

Dr C. NIELSEN Zoologisk Museum, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100, Kobenhavn, Denmark 
Dr I.W.B. NYE cjo The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. 
Dr W.D.L. RIDE Department of Geology, The Australian National University, P.O. Box 4, 

Canberra. A.C.T. 2600, Australia 
Prof J. M. SAVAGE Department of Biology, University of Miami, P.O. Box 249118, Coral 

Gables, Florida 33124, U.S.A. (Councillor) 



4 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



Prof Dr R. SCHUSTER Institut fur Zoologie, Universitdt Graz, Universitdtsplatz 2. A-80J0 Graz, 
Austria 

Dr Y.I. STAROBOGATOV Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya 

naberezhnaya 1, Leningrad 199034, U.S.S.R. 
Dr F.C. THOMPSON Systematic Entomology Laboratory, USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum, 

Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A. 
DtV. A.TRJAPUZIN Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya naberezhnaya 

1, Leningrad 199034, U.S.S.R. 
Dr Shun-Ichi UENO Department of Zoology, National Science Museum, Hyakunincho 3-23-1 , 

Shinjukuku, Tokyo 160, Japan 
Prof A. WILLINK Universidad Nacional de Tucumdn, Institute Miguel Lillo, Miguel Lillo 205, 

4000 Tucumdn, Argentina 



International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 



Members 

Professor H.B. Whittington, F.R.S. {Chairman) 

Dr M.K. Howarth {Secretary and Managing Director) 

Dr Keiji Baba 

Prof Per Brinck 

Prof J.H. Callomon 

DrN.R. Chalmers 

Dr H.G. Cogger 

DrP.F.S. Cornelius 

Prof C.B. Cox 

The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Cranbrook, F.L.S., F.Z.S. 

Dr R.W. Crosskey 

Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. 

Prof J. Forest 

Col F.J. Griffin, O.B.E. 

Dr R.H. Hedley, C.B., F.I.Biol. 

Dr L.B. Holthuis 

Prof DrO. Kraus 

Dr M. Luc 

Dr R.B. Manning 

Mr R.V. Melville 

DrI.W.B.Nye 

Dr W.D.L. Ride 

Dr E.P.F. Rose 

Dr G.B. White 

Dr A.G. Marshall {Observer for the Royal Society) 



Officers 

Dr P.K. Tubbs, M.A., Ph.D. {Scientific Controller) 
Mr J.D.D. Smith, B.Sc, B.A. {Scientific Administrator) 
Miss R.A. Cooper, B.Sc. {Zoologist) 
Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. {Zoologist) 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 ' 5 

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in / 
Zoology — Supplement 

The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology was published in 1 987. 
This book gives details of all the names and works on which the Commission has ruled 
since it was set up in 1895, up to 1985. There are about 9,900 entries. 

In the three years 1986-1988, 544 names and three works were added to the Official 
Lists and Official Indexes. A supplement has been prepared giving these additional 
entries, together with some amendments to entries in the 1987 volume. This supplement 
was circulated with Vol. 46, Part 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Copies 
can be obtained without charge from either of the following addresses, from which 
the Official Lists and Indexes can be ordered at the price shown (postage included). 
Payment should accompany orders. 

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History 
Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Price £60 or $110 
or 

The American Association for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o NHB Stop 163, National 
Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Price $110 ($100 to 
members of A. A. Z.N.) , . 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 

The Third Edition (pubhshed 1985) supersedes all earlier versions and incorporates 
many changes. 

Copies may be ordered from the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 
c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Price £19 
or $35 (postage included). Payment should accompany orders. 

Instructions to Authors 

Authors submitting applications for publication in the Bulletin of Zoological 
Nomenclature are particularly requested to follow the instructions printed on the inside 
back cover of the Bulletin. It would help to reduce the time that it takes to process the 
large number of applications received if the typescript could be accompanied by a disk 
with copy in ASCII text on IBM PC format 5.25 inch 360KB (preferable) or 1 .2MB, or 
3.5 inch 1.4MB floppy disk. Disks will be returned after copying. It would also be 
helpful if applications were accompanied by photocopies of relevant pages of the main 
references. 



6 

Case 2714 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1 ) March 1990 



Pleuractis Verrill, 1864 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): proposed designation of 
Fungia paumotensis Stutchbury, 1833 as the type species, with 
conservation of Lobactis Verrill, 1864 

Bert W. Hoeksema 

Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, 
The Netherlands 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve usage of the generic names of 
the mushroom corals Pleuractis Verrill, 1 864 and Lobactis Verrill, 1 864, by designating 
Fungia paumotensis Stutchbury, 1833 as the type species of Pleuractis. 



1 . The species Fungia scutaria Lamarck, 1 80 1 (p. 370) is the type species of Pleuractis 
Verrill, 1864 (p. 52). Verrill stated that he selected it as type, and based the desig- 
nation on specimens from Singapore which were collected by Captain W. H. A. 
Putnam. At present, ten specimens from this collection, labelled as Pleuractis scutaria, 
are in the coral collection of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Cambridge, 
Massachusetts. Examination of this material (MCZ 5398) revealed that all these 
specimens were misidentified by Verrill and actually belong to Fungia paumotensis 
Stutchbury, 1833 (p. 495, pi. 32, figs. 6a-b). 

2. The syntypes of Fungia scutaria Lamarck, 1801 (no type locality given) were 
illustrated by Seba (1759, pi. 1 12, figs. 28-30). One of these figures (fig. 29) resembles 
only slightly the species currently known as F. scutaria. Seba's figures 28 and 30 
resemble specimens of F. cyclolites Lamarck, 1801 and F. fungites (Linnaeus, 1758) 
respectively. The whereabouts of Seba's specimens are unknown. In Lamarck's collec- 
tion at the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle at Paris there are two corals from the 
Red Sea which are labelled Fungia scutaria. One of these (MNHN 297) was designated 
neotype of that species by myself (1989, p. 131). This neotype represents F. scutaria as 
it has been interpreted since Doderlein's (1902) taxonomic revision of Fungia (see 
Hoeksema, 1989). 

3 . The holotype of F. paumotensis (type locahty 'Paumotos' = Tuamotu Archipelago, 
S. Pacific) is believed to be lost. Stutchbury (1833) did not indicate whether it was 
deposited in a museum or left in the field after the illustrations were made. It is neither in 
the British Museum (Natural History) nor in the collection of the Linnean Society of 
London, where it most likely would have been deposited. The illustrations of the 
holotype given by Stutchbury (1833, pi. 32, figs. 6a-b) are not clear enough to show its 
identity. Therefore in my taxonomic revision of the fungiidae (1989, p. 145) I desig- 
nated a neotype (BMNH 1939.1.2.31) from Aku Maru, Gambler Islands, Tuamotu 
Archipelago. This neotype represents F. paumotensis as it has been interpreted since 
Doderlein's (1902) revision. 

4. The species Fungia dentigera Leuckart, 1841 (p. 48, pi. 3, figs. 1-2) is the type 
species by original designation of Lobactis Verrill, 1864 (p. 52). In Doderlein's (1902) 



Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 ".^ 7 

revision of Fungia, and in subsequent works, F. dentigera has been considered a junior 
subjective synonym of F. sciitaria (see Hoeksema, 1989, p. 130). 

5. Wells (1966, p. 238), in his generic revision of the fungiidae, united Pleuractis 
and Lobactis under the name Pleuractis as a subgenus in Fungia Lamarck, 1801.1 believe 
(1989, pp. 1 29-1 30, 1 34, 256-257) that the true Fungia scut aria differs from the Pleuractis 
species and should be classified with another subgenus. Since Fungia dentigera, a junior 
subjective synonym of F. scutaria, is the type species of Lobactis, F. scutaria should be 
classified with Lobactis. Hence maintenance of the nominal species F. scutaria Lamarck 
as the type species of Pleuractis, ignoring the misidentification by Verrill (1864), will 
cause confusion. 

6. This case is being referred to the Commission under Article 70b of the Code. As a 
result of the neotype designation of Fungia scutaria, the type species of Pleuractis and 
Lobactis are synonymous, and because of Wells' first reviser action in 1 966, Pleuractis 
has precedence over Lobactis. To conserve the existing usage of both Pleuractis and 
Lobactis, I propose as type species of Pleuractis the species actually considered by 
Verrill (1864) and wrongly named in its type fixation, namely Fungia paumotensis . 

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous designations of type species for 
the nominal genus Pleuractis Verrill, 1864 and to designate Fungia paumotensis 
Stutchbury, 1833 as the type species; 

(2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Pleuractis Verrill, 1864 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1) 
above Fungia paumotensis Stutchbury, 1833; 

(b) Lobactis Verrill, 1 864 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation 
Fungia dentigera Leuckart, 1841 (a junior subjective synonym of Fungia 

Lamarck, 1801); 

(3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) paumotensis Stutchbury, 1833, as published in the binomen Fungia 
paumotensis and as defined by the neotype designated by Hoeksema (1989) 
(specific name of the type species of PleuractisV QxriW, 1864, by designation in 
(1) above); 

(b) scutaria Lamarck, 1801, as published in the binomen Fungia scutaria and as 
defined by the neotype designated by Hoeksema (1989) (senior subjective 
synonym of Fungia dentigera Leuckart, 1841, the type species of Lobactis 
Verrill, 1864). 

Acknowledgements 

Prof. Dr L. B. Holthuis is gratefully acknowledged for his advice. . ' . 

References 

Doderlein, L. 1902. Die Korallengattung Fungia. Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen naturfor- 

schenden Gesellschaft, 27(1): 1-162. 
Hoeksema, B. W. 1989. Taxonomy, phylogeny and biogeography of mushroom corals 

(Scleractinia: Fungiidae). Zoologische Verhandelingen, Leiden, 254: 1-295. 
Lamarck, J. B. P. A. de M. 1801. Systeme des animaux sans vertebres, viij, 432 pp. Deterville, 

Paris. 



8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47( 1 ) March 1 990 

Leuckart, F. S. 1 84 1 . Observationes zoologicae de Zoophytis coralliis, speciatim de genere Fungia. 

60 pp. 4 pis. Emmerling, Friburgi Brisigavorum. 
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1 . 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 
Seba, A. 1759. Locupletissimi Rerum naturalium Thesauri accuralya Descriptio. vol. 3. Janssonio- 

Waesbergios, Amsteloedami. 
Stutchbury, S. 1833. An account of the mode of growth of young corals of the genus Fungia. 

Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 16: 493-497. 
Verrill, A. E. 1 864. List of the polyps and corals sent by the Museum of Comparative Zoology to 

other institutions in exchange, with annotations. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative 

Zoology, L 29-60. 

Wells, J. W. 1 966. Evolutionary development in the scleractinian family Fungiidae. Pp. 223-246, 
pi. 1 in Rees, W.J. (Ed.). The Cnidaria and their evolution. Symposia of the Zoological 
Society of London, no. 16. 449 pp. Academic Press, London. 



I 

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1 990 



9 



Case 2547 ■ .v, - : .rf^u ;^.^,:„ 

CYMATIINAE Iredale, 1913 (1854) (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and 
CYMATiiNAE Walton in Hutchinson, 1940 (Insecta, Heteroptera): 
proposal to remove the homonymy 

AnttiJansson 

Zoological Museum, P. Rautatiekatii 13, SF-00100 Helsinki, Finland ■ -" 
Alan G. Beu 

New Zealand Geological Survey, DSIR, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt, - 
New Zealand - 

Abstract. The purpose of this apphcation is to remove the homonymy between the 
molluscan family-group name cymatiinae Iredale, 1913 (1854) and the insect family- 
group name cymatiinae Walton in Hutchinson, 1940. It is proposed that the latter be 
altered to cymatiainae by changing the stem of the type genus Cymatia from cymati- 

tOCYMATIA-. 



1. The gastropod family-group name cymatiidae was established by Iredale (1913, 
p. 56). The type genus of the family is Cymatium [Roding], 1798 (p. 129; see Direction 
48 for authorship of this name) with the type species Murex femorale Linnaeus, 1758 
(p. 749) by subsequent designation by Dall (1904, p. 133). cymatiidae is a junior 
synonym of ranellidae Gray, 1854 (p. 37), but Beu & Cernohorsky (1986) have 
conserved it under Article 40b as a subfamily name that replaces lampusiidae Newton, 
1891; lampusiidae (published as 'lampusidae') is based on Lampusia Schumacher, 
1817, a junior subjective synonym of Monoplex Perry, 181 1, a subgenus of Cymatium. 
Lampusia had become a junior subjective synonym of Cymatium, Septa and Monoplex 
before Iredale (1913) introduced cymatiinae because Cymatium Roding, 1798 was the 
oldest relevant nominal genus, lampusiidae (proposed by Newton in 1891) was 
rejected (i.e. not adopted) by Iredale because of this junior synonymy of Lampusia; it is 
true that Iredale did not explicitly 'replace' lampusiidae by cymatiinae, but he was 
working nearly 50 years before the Code applied priority to family-group names. 
cymatiinae has become generally accepted (see BZN 32: 8-1 1 and Beu & Cernohorsky, 
1986). It is therefore appropriate to apply Article 40b to this case. 

2. Recently Ponder & Waren (1988, p. 302) have Hsted the subfamily name 
neptunellinae Gray, 1854 (p. 38) as a senior synonym of cymatiinae Iredale. This 
name (which Ponder & Waren spelled as "neptunellininae") and that of its type 
genus Neptunella Gray, 1854 (p. 38) have never been used; Neptunella is a junior 
objective synonym of Cabestana [Roding], 1798 (p. 130), which is closely related to 
Cymatium. Because it has been totally unused there is clearly an even stronger case for 
rejecting neptunellinae than for lampusiidae, in the spirit of Article 40b (see para. 1). 



10 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



We cite cymatiidae as Iredale, 1913 (1854); the double date citation is awkward but is 
given by Recommendation 40A of the Code. 

3. CYMATiiNi was established as a tribe of corixinae (waterboatmen; Insecta) by 
Walton in Hutchinson (1940, p. 344) with the type genus Cymatia Flor, 1860, p. 799. 
The type species of this genus is Sigara coleoptrata Fabricius, 1777 (p. 298) by sub- 
sequent designation by Kirkaldy (1898, p. 252). China (1943) upgraded the taxon, 
listing it as the subfamily cymatiinae. Hungerford (1948, p. 99) also gave the taxon 
subfamily status (incorrectly stating 'cymatiinae subfamily new'), and this has been 
accepted in modern classifications almost universally (a representative list is held by the 
Commission Secretariat). 

4. Although the family-group names by Iredale (1913) and Walton in Hutchinson 
(1940) are not based on identically spelled generic names, the family-group names 
are homonymous. The existence of this homonymy was pointed out by Jaczewski 
(1971) and Cernohorsky & Beu (1972) but, despite the clear statements in Articles 52 
and 60, the junior homonym has so far not been replaced. Jaczewski (1971) further 
stated that the corixid subfamily cymatiinae 'includes only one genus, Cymatia Flor, 
1860, which has no synonymic names or ever had any'. However, Jansson (1982) has 
since described the genus Cnethocymatia, so there are two genera in the subfamily at 
present. 

5. In our opinion, as neither Cymatia Flor nor cymatiinae Walton in Hutchinson 
has any synonyms which could be used to form a name to replace the junior homonym 
(Article 55 b (i)), the case would be solved with the least confusion by following Article 
55b(ii) and including all the letters of the generic name Cymatia in the stem of the junior 
homonymic name. 

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 the stem of the 
generic name Cymatia Flor, 1 860 is cymatia-; 

(2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Cymatium [Roding], 1798 (gender: neuter), type species by subsequent 
designation by Dall (1904) Murex femorale Linnaeus, 1758; 

(b) Cymatia Flor, 1860 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent desig- 
nation by Kirkaldy (1898) Sigara coleoptrata Fabricius, 1777; 

(3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) femorale Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Murex femorale 
(specific name of the type species of Cymatium [Roding], 1798); 

(b) coleoptrata Fabricius, 1777, as published in the binomen Sigara coleoptrata 
and as interpreted by the lectotype designated by Jansson (1986) (specific 
name of the type species of Cymatia Flor, 1 860); 

(4) to place the following names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) cymatiinae Iredale, 1913 (1854), type genus Cymatium [Roding], 1798; 

(b) CYMATiAiNAE Waltou in Hutchinson, 1940, type genus Cymatia Flor, 1860 
(spelling emended in (1) above); 

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group names in 
Zoology the name cymatiinae Walton in Hutchinson, 1940 (spelling emended 
to CYMATIAINAE in (1) above). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47( 1 ) March 1 990 



11 



References r- ; ./■..';'--"■■■■: '-. 

Beu, A. G. & Cernohorsky, W. O. 1986. Taxonomy of gastropods of the families Ranellidae 

( = Cymatiidae) and Bursidae. Part 1 . Adoption of Ranellidae, and review of Linatella Gray, 

1857. New ZealandJoumal of Zoology, 13: 241-266. 
Cernohorsky, W. O. & Beu, A. G. 1972. Replies to comments on proposed validation of 

Cymatiidae Iredale, 1913. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 29: 109-1 10. 
China, W. E. 1943. Pp. 217-316 In The generic names of British Hemiptera-Heteroptera, with a 

check list of the British Species. The generic names of British Insects, vol. 1, part 8. 466 pp. 
Dall, W. H. 1904. An historical and systematic review of the frog-shells and tritons. Smithsonian 

Miscellaneous Collections, 47: 1 14-144. 
Fabricius, J. C. 1777. Genera insectorum eorumque characteres naturales secundum numerum, 

figuram, 310 pp. Bartschii, Chilonii. 

Flor, G. 1860. Z)/e Rhynchoten Livlands, vol. 1. 825 pp. Schulz, Dorpat. 

Gray, J. E. 1854. On the division of the ctenobranchous gasteropodous Mollusca into larger 

groups and families. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 21: 32-44. 
Hungerford, H. B. 1948. The Corixidae of the Western Hemisphere (Hemiptera). University of 

Kansas Science Bulletin, 32: 1-827. 
Hutchinson, G. E. 1940. A revision of the Corixidae of India and Adjacent Regions. Transactions 

of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 33: 339-476. 
Iredale, T. 1913. The generic name to be used for Murex tritonis Linne. The Nautilus, 27: 55-56. 
Jaczewski, T. 1971. Comment on the proposed preservation of Cymatiidae Iredale, 1913. 

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 28: 142. 
Jansson, A. 1982. Notes on some Corixidae (Heteroptera) from New Guinea and New 

Caledonia. Pacific Insects, 24: 95-103. 
Jansson, A. 1986. The Corixidae (Heteroptera) of Europe and some adjacent regions. Acta 

Entomologica Fennica, 47: 1-94. 
Kirkaldy, G. W. 1898. On the nomenclature of the European subgenera of Corixa, Geoffr. 

(Rhynchota.). Entomologist, 31: 252-253. 
Linnaeus, C. \15'i. Systema naturae, Ed. 10,vol. 1 . 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 
Newton, R. B. 1 89 1 . Systematic list of the F.E. Edwards collection of British Oligocene and Eocene 

Mollusca in the British Museum, xxviii, 365 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. 
Perry, G. 1811. Conchology, or the natural history of shells: containing a new arrangement of the 

genera and species ... 4 pp. + unpaginated captions, 61 pis. Miller, London. 
Ponder, W. F. & Waren, A. 1988. Appendix. Classification of the Caenogastropoda and 

Heterostropha — a list of the family-group names and higher taxa. Malacological Review, 

Supplement, 4: 288-326. 
[Roding, P. F.| 1798. Museum Boltenianum, sive catalogus cimeliorum e tribus regnis naturae quae 

ohm collegerat joa. Fried. Bolten . . . pars secunda. viii, 199 pp. Trapii, Hamburg, [facsimile 

reprint, Sherborn & Sykes, 1906]. 
Schumacher, C. F. 1817. Essai d'un nouveau systeme des habitations des vers testaces, avec XXII 

planches. 287 pp., 22 pis. Schultz, Copenhagen. 



12 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



Case 2641 

Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784 et Nerita hebraea Martyn, 1786 
(actuellement Placostylus fibratus et Natica hebraea; Moilusca, 
Gastropoda): conservation proposee pour les noms specifiques; et 
Placostylus Beck, 1837: designation proposee de L. fibratus comme 
espece-type 

Philippe Bouchet 

Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 55 rue Buffon, Paris, France 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve two gastropod names, Limax 
fibratus Martyn, 1784 and Nerita hebraea Martyn, 1786, which were published in The 
Universal Conchologist by T. Martyn (1784-1787), and to designate L. fibratus as the 
type species of Placostylus Beck, 1 837. Although in use, the specific names are at present 
formally unavailable because Martyn's work has been rejected as being non-binominal 
(Opinion 456, March 1957). 

Resume. L'objet de la presente requete est la conservation de deux noms de gasteropodes, 
Limax fibratus Martyn, 1 784 et Nerita hebraea Martyn, 1786, publics dans The Universal 
Conchologist de T. Martyn ( 1 784-1 787), et la designation de L. fibratus comme espece- 
type de Placostylus Beck, 1 837. Bien qu'actuellement utilises, ces noms specifiques sont 
actuellement indisponibles, le travail de Martyn ayant ete rejete au motif qu'il n'est pas 
binominal (Opinion 456, mars 1957). 



1. En plagant The Universal Conchologist (Martyn, 1784-1787) sur I'lndex Officiel 
des Travaux Rejetes et Invalides en Nomenclature Zoologique, la Commission Inter- 
nationale precisait dans son Opinion 456 "consideration will be given to applications 
for the validation of individual names. ... if submitted by specialists with adequate 
data regarding the names concerned". Des malacologistes neo-zelandais ont demande 
la validation de neuf noms utilises pour des especes de leur region. Leur requete a ete 
acceptee (Opinion 479, septembre 1957). Le but de la presente requete est de demander 
de rendre disponibles deux autres noms actuellement utilises en depit de I'Opinion 456. 
Dall (1907, p. 187) a montre que les planches 1-80 (volumes 1 et 2) de The Universal 
Conchologist ont paru en 1784, les planches 81-120 (volume 3) en 1786, et les planches 
121-160 (volume 4 et dernier) probablement au printemps 1787. 

2. Le nom Limax fibratus, fonde sur la figure de Martyn ( 1 784, pi. 25), est actuellement 
utilise dans la combinaison Placostylus fibratus pour un gasteropode Bulimulidae de 
Nouvelle-Caledonie. Pendant la premiere partie du 19eme siecle, la nomenclature de 
cette espece est confuse, et les discussions font usage des noms suivants, generalement 
consideres comme des synonymes de Placostylus fibratus: Helix aurismalchi Miiller, 
1774, Voluta elongata Lightfoot, 1786, Bulimus bovinus Bruguiere, 1792, Ellobium 
aw^rra/e Roding, 1798, Voluta australisTi'iW'wyn, \ , Auricula aurantiacaSchumdiChQV, 
ISn , Helix aurisbovinus Ferussac, 1821 et Bulimus bootis Menke, 1828. 



Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 . - 13 



3. Helix aurismalchi Miiller, 1 774 (p. 1 12) est introduit pour designer une coquille de 
la collection Spengler, pour laquelle Miiller ne donne ni localite, ni figure, ni reference 
a une figure publiee. Bruguiere, 1789 (p. 319) a utilise le nom dans la combinaison 
Bulimus aurismalchi etGmdin, 1791 (p. 3437) dans la combinaison Valuta aurismalchi. 
Bruguiere et Gmelin font reference a Miiller et a Chemnitz (1786, pi. 121, figs 1037- 
1038), qui figure une coquille de la collection Spengler, probablement I'holotype de 
Muller. Cette coquille n'est pas presente dans la collection Spengler, conservee au 
Zoologisk Museum, Kobenhavn (T. Schiotte, comm. pers.). Apres Pfeiffer (1848, 
p. 139), ce nom n'a jamais ete cite autrement que comme synonyme subjectif de 
Placostylus (ou Bulimus) fibratus, bien qu'il lui soit anterieur. 

4. Valuta elangata Lightfoot, 1786 (pp. 30, 143) est fonde sur la figure (sic) 25 du 
volume 1 de Martyn (1784), avec la localite "New Caledonia". II s'agit done d'un 
synonyme objectif de Limaxfibratus. Ce nom n'a jamais ete utilise, ni meme cite, dans 
un quelconque travail avant 1967 et, suite a I'Opinion 456, seuls Rehder (1967, p. 9: 
"Since the name fibratus is unavailable, the adoption of Lightfoot's name should prove 
acceptable") et Pain (1988) en ont recommande I'adoption. 

5. Bulimus bovinus Bruguiere, 1792 (p. 345) est fonde avec des references a Lister 
(1770, pi. 1058, fig. 8; pour les dates des differentes editions de Lister voir Wilkins 
(1957, p. 196)), Favanne (1780, pi. 65, fig. V; 1784, p. 20, no. 81) et Chemnitz (1786, 
pi. 121, figs. 1039-1040). Favanne (1784, p. 20) et Chemnitz (p. 42) donnent respec- 
tivement la Nouvelle-Hollande ( = Australie) et la Nouvelle-Caledonie pour origine 
de leur coquille; Bruguiere indique la Nouvelle-Hollande comme origine de I'espece. 
Pfeiffer (1848, p. 139) place le nom bavinus dans la synonymic de Bulimus fibratus de 
Nouvelle-Caledonie, mais Petit (1853) considere qu'il s'agit d'une espece distincte, 
synonyme de Bulimus shangii Lesson, 1831 (p. 321, pi. 7, figs. 4 et 5) de Nouvelle- 
Zelande (pour les dates de pubUcation du travail de Lesson voir Sherborn & 
Woodward (1906, p. 336)). L'opinion de Petit est suivie par la plupart des auteurs de 
la deuxieme moitie du 19eme siecle, qui utilisent done pour I'espece neo-zelandaise le 
synonyme anterieur Bulimus (ou Placostylus) bovinus Bruguiere (13 utilisations citees 
par Pilsbry (1900, p. 22)). Pilsbry (1900, p. 40) au contraire conclut a la synonymic 
de Bulimus bovinus avec P. fibratus de Nouvelle-Caledonie et restaure I'usage du 
nom P. shangii pom I'espece de Nouvelle-Zelande. Apres Pilsbry, je n'ai pas trouve de 
citation du nom bovinus Bruguiere autrement que dans la synonymic de Placostylus 
fibratus. 

6. En fait, I'examen des figures originales auxquelles se refere Bruguiere ne permet 
pas d'identifier avec certitude bovinus. La coquille figuree par Lister ( 1 770) est meconn- 
aissable et la figure de Favanne ( 1 780) parait copiee sur celle de Lister. Compte tenu de 
la date (1774) de la decouverte de la Nouvelle-Caledonie par Cook, elle n'est certaine- 
ment pas celle d'un Bulimulidae de Nouvelle-Caledonie; elle pourrait etre celle d'un 
Bulimulidae ou d'un Acavidae sud-americain. Malgre la localisation Nouvelle- 
Caledonie de la coquille figuree par Chemnitz, la tres grande variabilite intraspecifique 
des especes de ce genre, le manque de details sur la figure originale de Chemnitz, et 
I'absence de materiel type (absent dans la partie de la collection Chemnitz conservee au 
Zoologisk Museum, Kobenhavn; T. Schiotte, comm. pers.) rendent I'interpretation du 
nom subjective. Les figures 1039-1040 peuvent tout aussi bien representer une forme 
de P. fibratus qu'une forme de P. porphyrostomus (Pfeiflfer, 1851), partiellement 
sympatrique avec P. fibratus. 



14 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



7. Ellobium australe Roding, 1798 (p. 106) est introduit sans description, mais avec 
references a Valuta aurismalchi Gmelin et aux figures 1039-1040 de Chemnitz. En 
I'absence d'une designation formelle de figure type, le nom de Roding peut done etre 
considere comme un synonyme objectif ou de Helix aurismalchi Miiller, 1774 ou de 
Bulimus bovinus Bruguiere, 1792. Dillwyn (1817, p. 500) utilise le nom dans la 
combinaison Valuta australis. 

8. Auricula aurantiaca Schumacher, 1817 (p. 228) est un nom introduit sans 
description. La reference aux figures 1039-1 040 de Chemnitz et au nom Bulimus bovinus 
"Bosc" conduit a traiter ce nom comme un synonyme objectif de Bulimus bovinus 
Bruguiere, 1792. Helix aurisbovinus Ferussac, 1821 (p. 57) est un nom introduit sans 
description, et attribue par Ferussac a Bruguiere. Les references aux figures 1039-1040 
de Chemnitz conduisent a interpreter ce binome comme une emendation injustifiee ou 
un nomen novum pro Bulimus bovinus Bruguiere. Bulimus bootis Menke, 1828 (p. 14) 
est introduit sans description, mais valide par references aux noms Helix aurisbovina 
Ferussac, Auricula bovina "Lamarck" et Valuta aurismalchi "Gmelin". Bulimus bootis 
doit etre considere comme un nomen novum pro Bulimus bovinus Bruguiere, 1792. 

9. Le nom fibratus n'a jamais ete remplace par I'un quelconque de ces synonymes, et 
I'usage du nom fibratus a ete continu chez les zoologistes (voir, par exemple, Gassies, 
1863, p. 243, pi. 4, fig. l;Kobelt, 1891, pp. 47-49, pi. 21, figs. 1-5; Cockerell, 1929, pp. 
74-76; et Franc, 1956, pp. 152-153, pi. 18, fig. 195). Apres la publication del'Opinion 
456, peu d'auteurs ont publie sur les Placostylus de Nouvelle-Caledonie, mais tous ont 
continue a utiliser le nom fibratus: Pain (1958), Solem (1961, p. 472), Starmiihlner 
(1970, p. 312), Cherel (1980, p. 36), et Parkinson et al. (1987, p. 244). Seuls Rehder 
(1967) et Pain (1988, dans une analyse d'ouvrage) ont conteste cet usage (voir para- 
graphe 4 ci-dessus). L'opinion de Solem, qui ignorait le nom P. elongatus, merite d'etre 
rapportee ici: "The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Opinion 
456) invalidated Martyn's names as a group. ... I prefer to retain Martyn's name rather 
than to try to determine the identity of one of the ill-figured and badly described 
synonyms from the late 1700's and early 1800's. While this is against the letter of the 
International Code, it is a much more practical solution". 

10. Le nom de genre Placostylus a ete introduit par Beck (1837, p. 57), pour y placer 
la seule espece P. bootis (Menke, 1828). Beck inclut sous ce nom une liste synonymique 
comprenant ''Valuta australis Dw.", ''Bui. auris bovinus Brug." et "Bui. shongi (sic) 
Lesson", et donne pour origine geographique de bootis "Nov. Zeel.". Apres Beck, les 
auteurs ont considere que son concept de bootis comprenait aussi fibratus Martyn, 
1784, et bien que ce nom ne figure pas dans la liste originale de synonymes, von Martens 
in Albers (1860, p. 185) a designe fibratus Martyn comme espece type de Placostylus. 
Cette procedure, erronee, a cependant ete ulterieurement retenue par certains auteurs 
dont Pilsbry (1900, pp. 19, 21) et Solem (1961, p. 472), probablement a cause de 
I'incertitude d'interpretation entourant le nom bootis. Bulimus shongii Lesson, 1831 est 
I'espece type, par designation originale, de Maoristylus Haas, 1935 (p. 188). Les noms 
Placostylus et Maoristylus sont maintenant universellement acceptes avec pour espece 
type respectivement bootis (compris subjectivement comme un synonyme de fibratus) et 
shongii; voir, par exemple. Zilch (1960, p. 497) et Powell (1979, p. 350 et references). 
Ainsi qu'il a ete vu plus haut, Bulimus bootis doit etre interprete comme un nomen 
novum pro B. bovinus Bruguiere, mais le nom bovinus n'est pas formellement 
reconnaissable. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47( 1 ) March 1 990 



15 



1 1 . J'en viens maintenant a la deuxieme espece concernee par cette requete. Le nom 
Nerita hebraea {Nerita litteris Hebraicis natatus sur les tables de certains exemplaires de 
I'ouvrage de Martyn: voir Dall, 1907, p. 191), fonde sur la figure de Martyn (1786, 
pi. 109), est actuellement employe dans la combinaison Natica hebraea ou Naticarius 
hebraeus pour un gasteropode Naticidae commun sur le plateau continental de 
Mediterranee. 

12. Pendant la premiere moitie du 1 9eme siecle, le statut de I'espece est incertain; elle 
est citee sous des noms tres divers, soit avec un statut d'espece soit avec un statut de 
variete de Natica millepunctata (Lamarck, 1 822), bien que le nom lamarckien lui soit 
posterieur. La taxonomie et la nomenclature des Natices des cotes frangaises sont 
revisees par Recluz (1852, p. 264), qui stabilise I'utilisation du nom Natica hebraea 
(Martyn). A partir de cette epoque, Tusage de ce nom devient general, aussi bien dans 
les catalogues locaux que dans les ouvrages de determination. Bucquoy, Dautzenberg 
et Dollfus (1883, pp. 139-140) donnent une liste de citations anterieures a 1882. 
Exemples de ces utilisations anciennes du nom hebraea: Locard ( 1 886, p. 273), Hidalgo 
(1916, pp. 479, 486), Coen (1933, p. 26). L'invalidation en 1957 du travail de Martyn 
The Universal Conchologist est passee inapergue des auteurs europeens, qui n'ont pas 
remarque que cette decision aflfectait la nomenclature de cette espece mediterraneenne 
et le nom hebraea a continue d'etre employe regulierement dans la litterature. Les 
ouvrages ou articles suivants sont parmi les plus recents a maintenir cet usage: Sabelli et 
Spada (1980,p.l01), Nordsieck ( 1 982, p. 1 86, avec 1' orthographe hebrdus). Villa (1986, 
p. 15). Une liste de huit autres references est deposee au secretariat de la Commission. 
Plusieurs de ces references sont celles de guides tres utilises pour I'identification des 
especes de la faune mediterraneenne. 

13. Le premier synonyme plus recent de Natica hebraea (Martyn, 1786) est Natica 
maculata (von Salis, 1793, p. 379), publie dans la combinaison Nerita maculata. Une 
confusion dans Tutilisation de ce nom est due au fait que Deshayes (1838, p. 645) a 
publie la combinaison Natica maculata sans aucune reference a von Salis. Les deux 
noms Natica maculata (von Salis, 1 793) et Natica maculata Deshayes, 1838 sont homo- 
nymes secondaires et synonymes subjectifs. Le nom maculata est bien plus rarement 
utilise que hebraea et, au cours des 30 dernieres annees, je n'ai pu en trouver que deux 
utilisations: Ghisotti (1972, p. 81) et Koroneos (1979, p. 10). Ces auteurs n'invoquent 
cependant pas Tinvalidite du nom de Martyn pour justifier I'emploi du nom maculata. 

14. Dans I'interet de la stabilite de la nomenclature et au nom d'un usage continu, il 
est demande a la Commission Internationale de Nomenclature Zoologique: 

(1) d'user de ses pleins pouvoirs pour: 

(a) supprimer le nom specifique aurismalchi Miiller, 1 774, publie dans le binome 
Helix aurismalchi, au regard du Principe de Priorite mais pas au regard du 
Principe d'Homonymie; 

(b) regler que les noms specifiques suivants sont disponibles: 

(i) fibratus Martyn, 1 784, publie dans le binome Limax fibratus; 

(ii) hebraea Martyn, 1786, publie dans le binome Nerita hebraea; 

(c) ecarter toutes les designations anterieures d'espece-type du genre Placostylus 
Beck, 1837 et designer Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784 comme espece-type; 

(2) de placer sur la Liste Officielle des Noms Generiques en Zoologie le nom 
Placostylus Beck, 1837 (genre: masculin), avec pour espece-type par designation 
en (l)(c) ci-dessus Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784; 



16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1 990 

(3) de placer sur la Liste Officielle des Noms Specifiques en Zoologie les noms 
suivants: 

(a) fibratus Martyn, 1 784, public dans le binome Limax fibratus (nom specifique 
de Tcspece-type de Placostylus Beck, 1837 par designation en (l)(c) ci- 

dessus); 

(b) hebraea Martyn, 1786, public dans Ic binome Nerita hebraea; 

(4) de placer sur I'lndex Officiel des Noms Specifiques Rejetes et Invalides en 
Zoologie les noms suivants: 

(a) aurismalchi Miiller, 1774, public dans le binome Helix aurismalchi et 
supprime en (l)(a) ci-dessus; 

(b) elongata Lightfoot, 1 786, publie dans le binome Valuta elongata, synonyme 
objectif posterieur de fibratus, Martyn, 1 784, publie dans le binome Limax 
fibratus. 

References 

Albers, J. C. 1 860. Die Heliceen nach natUrlicher Verwandtschaft systematisch geordnet, Ed. 2, par 

E. V. Martens. 359 pp. Engelmann, Leipzig. 
Beck, H. 1837. Index Molluscorum praesentis aevi Musei Principis Augustissimi Christiani 

Frederici. 124 pp. Copenhague. 
Bruguiere, J. G. 1789-1792. Encyclopedie methodique. Histoire naturelle des Vers, vol. 1. pp. xviii, 

1-344 [1789], pp. 345-757 [1792]. Panckoucke, Paris. 
Bucquoy, H., Dautzenberg, P. & Dollfus, G. 1883. Les Mollusques marins du Roussillon, vol. 1 

(Gastropodes), pars 4 (Families Naticidae, Pyramidellidae), pp. 136-196. Bailliere, Paris. 
Chemnitz, J. H. 1786. Neues systematisches Conchylien-Cabinel, vol. 9, pars 2, Land- und 

Flussschnecken. xxvi, 194 pp., pis. 1 17-136. Kafpe, Niirnberg. 
Cherel, C. 1980. Land snails of the genus Placostylus in New Caledonia. Haliotis, 10(2): 36. 
Cockerell, T. D. A. 1929. The genus Placostylus in New Caledonia. The Nautilus, 42(3): 73-78. 
Coen, G. 1933. Saggio di una Sylloge Molluscorum Adriaticorum. Memorie Reale Comitato 

Talassografico Italiano, 192: 1-186. 
Dall, W. H. 1907. Supplementary notes on Martyn's Universal Conchologist. Proceedings of the 

United States National Museum, 33(1565): 185-192. 
Deshayes, G. P. 1838. In Lamarck, J. B. P. A. de, Histoire des Animaux sans Vertebres. Ed. 2, 

vol. 8 (Mollusques), 657 pp. Bailliere, Paris. 
Dillwyn, L. W. 1817. ^ descriptive catalogue of recent shells, arranged according to the Linnaean 

method; with particular attention to the synonymy, vol. 1. xii, 580 pp. Arch, London. 
Favanne de Montcervelle, G. J. de. 1780. La Conchyliologie, ou histoire naturelle des coquilles de 

mer, d'eau douce, terrestres et fossiles; avec un traite de la zoomorphose . . . par M. Desalier 

d'Argenville. . . . Ed. 3, vol. 3, 80 pis. De Bure, Paris. 
Favanne de Montcervelle, G. J. de. 1784. Catalogue systematique et raisonne, ou description 

du magnifique cabinet appartenant ci-devant d M. le C[ ompte ] de (la Tour d'Auvergne J . xii, 

558 pp., 9 pis. Quillau, Paris. 
Ferussac, A. E. d'A. de. 1821. Tableaux systematiques des animaux Mollusques. ... 114 pp. 

Bertrand, Paris; Sowerby, London. 
Franc, A. 1956. Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de I'archipel neo-caledonien. Memoires du 

Museum national d' Histoire naturelle, Paris, (A) 13: 1-200. 
Gassies, J.-B. 1863. Faune Conchyliologique terrestre et fluvio-lacustre de la Nouvelle- 

Caledonie. Actes de la Societe Linneenne de Bordeaux, (3) 24(4): 21 1-326. 
Gmelin, J. F. 1791. Caroli a Linne Systema Naturae. Ed. 13, vol. 1, pars 6 (Vermes), pp. 

3021-3910. Leipzig. 

Ghisotti, F. 1972. Le Conchiglie del golfo di Gabes (parte prima). Conchiglie, 8(5-6): 63-89. 
Haas, F. 1935. Beschreibung neuer Untergattungen und Arten von Mollusken. Zoologischer 
Anzeiger, 109(7/8): 188-195. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47( 1 ) March 1990 



17 



Hidalgo, J. G. 1916. Fauna malacologica de Espana, Portugal, y las Baleares. Moluscos testaceos 

marinos. 752 pp. Madrid. 
Kobelt, W. 1891. Die Gattung Placostylus Beck (Bulimus Neue Folge). Pp. 1-142, pis. 1-32 in 

Kuster, H. C. (Ed.), Systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet von Martini unci Chemnitz, vol. 1, 

pars 13a. Bauer & Raspe, Niirnberg. 
Koroneos, J. 1979. Les Mollusques de la Grece. 36 pp., 48 pis. E. Papadakis, Athenes. 
Lamarck, J. B. P. A. de. 1822. Histoire naturelle des Animaux sans Vertebres, vol. 6, pars 2. 232 

pp. Paris. 

Lesson, R. P. [1831]. Voyage autour du Monde sur la Corvette S. M. "La Coquille", pendant les 
annees 1822, 1823, 1824 et 1825. Par L. I. Duperrey. Zoologie, vol. 2, pars 1. pp. 241-471. 
Bertrand, Paris. 

Lightfoot, J. 1786. A Catalogue of the Portland Museum, lately the property of the Duchess 
Dowager of Portland, deceased, which will be sold at auction, by Mr Skinner and Co. 194 pp. 
London. 

Lister, M. 1770. Historiae sive Synopsis Methodicae Conchyliorum, Ed. 3, 4 pp., 1082 pis. 
Clarendon Press, Oxford. 

Locard, A. 1886. Catalogue general des Mollusques vivants de France. Mollusques marins. 778 pp. 
Henri Georg, Lyon; J.-B. Bailliere, Paris. 

Martyn, T. 1784-1787. The Universal Conchologist Exhibiting The Figure of every Known Shell 
accurately drawn and painted after Nature, vol. 1, pp. 1-39, Explanatory Table, pis. 1-40 
(1784); vol. 2, pp. 26-39, Explanatory Table, pis. 41-80 (1784); vol. 3, Explanatory Table, 
pis. 81-120 (1786); vol. 4, Explanatory Table, pis. 121-160 (1787). London. 

Menke, C. T. 1828. Synopsis methodica molluscorum . . . xii, 92 pp. Gelpke, Pyrmont. 

Miiller, O. F. 1774. Vermium Terrestrium et Fluviatilium . . . vol. 2, xxxv, 214 pp. Heineck et 
Faber, Copenhagen. 

Nordsieck, F. 1982. Die europdischen Meeres-Gehduseschnecken ( Prosobranchia) vom Eismeer 
bis Kapverden, Mittelmeer und Schwarzes Meer, Ed. 2. 539 pp. Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, 
New York. 

Pain, T. 1958. On a new sub-species of Placostylus fibratus (Martyn) from New Caledonia. 

Journal of Conchology , 24(8): 116-211. 
Pain, T. 1988. Review. Tropical Landshells of the World. Journal of Conchology, 33: 81. 
Parkinson, B., Hemmen, J. & Groh, K. 1987. Tropical Landshells of the World. 219 pp. Verlag 

Christa Hemmen, Wiesbaden. 
Petit de la Saussaye, S. 1 853. Notice sur le Bulimus auris bovina, Brug. Journal de Conchy liologie, 

(1)4: 403-405. 

Pfeiffer, L. 1848. Monographia Heliceorum Viventium . . ., vol. 2. 594 pp. Brockhaus, Leipzig. 
Pilsbry, H. A. 1900. Manual of Conchology , vol. 13. 253 pp., 72 pis. Conchological Section, 

Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia. 
Powell, A. W. B. 1979. New Zealand Mollusca. 500 pp. Collins, Auckland. 
Recluz, C. 1852. Des Natices propres aux cotes de la France continentale. Journal de ConchvUo- 

logie, 3: 263-272. 

Rehder, H. A. 1967. Valid zoological names of the Portland catalogue. Proceedings of the United 

States National Museum, 121(3579): 1-51. 
Roding, J. F. 1798. Museum Boltenianum sive Catalogus cimeliorum, pars secunda continens 

Conchylia . . . viii, 199 pp. Trapi, Hamburg. 
Sabelli, B. & Spada, G. 1 980. Guida Illustrata all'identificazione delle conchiglie del Mediterraneo. 

Naticidae 3. Bollettino Malacologico Italiano, 16(1-2, supplement): 1-4. 
Salis Marschlins, C. U. von. 1793. Reisen in verschiedene Provinzen des Konigreiches Neapel, vol. 

1, 442 pp. Ziegler & Sohne, Zurich & Leipzig. 
Schumacher, C. F. 1817. Essai d'un nouveau systeme des habitations des Vers Testaces. 287 pp., 

22 pis. Schultz, Copenhague. 
Sherborn, C. D. & Woodward, B. B. 1906. Notes on the dates of publication of the natural history 

portions of some French voyages — "Voyage autour du Monde sur la Coquille pendant 

1 822-25. Par L. 1. Duperrey" etc. — a Correction. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 

(7) 17(99): 335-336. 



18 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



Solem, A. 1961 . New Caledonian land and fresh-water snails. An annotated check list. Fieldiana: 

Zoology, 41(3): 413-501. 
Starmiihlner, F. 1970. Ergebnisse der osterreichischen Neukaledonien- Expedition 1965. 

Terrestrische Gastropoda 1. Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien, 74: 289-324. 
Villa, R. 1986. Revisione sistematica della famiglia Naticidae nel Mar Mediterraneo. Notiziario, 

Centra Italiano di Studi Malacologici (Roma), no. 7/8: 1 5-20. 
Wilkins, G. L. 1957. Notes on the Historia Conchyliorum of Martin Lister (1638-1712). Journal 

of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 3(4): 196-205. 
Zilch, A. 1960. Pars 2 (Euthyneura), no. 3, pp. 401-600 in W. Wenz (Ed.), vol. 6 (Gastropoda) of 

Schindewolf, O. H. (Ed.), Handbuch der Paldozoologie. Borntraeger, Berlin. 



Case 2558 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47( 1 ) March 1 990 



19 



Propter a Rafinesque, 1819 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): proposed conservation 

Mark E. Gordon 

Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Department of Biology, PO Box 
5 114, Tennessee Technological University , Cookeville, Tennessee 38505 , . 
U.S.A. y 

Abstract. The purpose of this apphcation is to conserve the name Propter a Rafinesque, 
1819, for a genus of North American freshwater mussels, by the suppression of the 
senior objective synonym Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818. 



1. A fairly concise, historical review of Proptera and Potamilus has been presented 
by Clarke (1986). The genus Potamilus was described briefly with a hst of 24 unde- 
scribed species, one of them named alatus, arranged in five unnamed subgenera 
(Rafinesque, 1818a, p. 355), all nomina nuda. Rafinesque stated that he had 

collected and described over 30 species, the whole of which appear to be new' and 
appended an abbreviation of his name, 'Raf.', at the end of the species Hst for each of 
the three presented genera {Potamilus, Pleurocera, and Ambloxis). Rafinesque later 
(1818b, p. 107) noted Potamilus as a new genus of fluviatile bivalves with 34 unnamed 
species and emended the gender of the name to feminine, as Potamila. 

2. In 1819 Rafinesque (p. 420) briefly described Proptera as a subgenus of Unio, and 
in it listed three nomina nuda: 'alata, phaiedra, pallida, etc.'. 

3. In 1820 Rafinesque noted his previous use of Potamilus as a catch-all genus, 
similar to his contemporaries' use of Unio, and abandoned it to be replaced by the 
'system' he initially had outlined in 1 8 1 9 and which he now presented. He also replaced 
Proptera with Metaptera (p. 299: he considered the former name to be inappropriate 
due to his earlier misinterpretation of the anterior-posterior orientation of the 
mussels), described M. megaptera (p. 300), included (p. 300) U. alatus Say, 1817 
(unpaginated, pi. 4, fig. 2; not 1816: see Johnson, 1975) under Metaptera, and specu- 
lated that U. ochraceus Say, 1817 and U. cariosus Say, 1817 were in this genus. 
Metaptera megaptera is a junior subjective synonym of U. alatus (synonymy originally 
proposed by Conrad, 1834, p. 67; justification in Clarke, 1973 , p. 101), and Metaptera 
is invalid as a junior objective synonym of Proptera. 

4. Potamilus alatus Rafinesque, 1818 and U. (Proptera) alata Rafinesque, 1819 are 
not Say's species but are nomina nuda. Rafinesque did not explicitly refer Say's alatus 
to the genus-group under consideration until 1820 (p. 300), as Metaptera alata. 

5. Herrmannsen (1847, p. 41) designated U. alatus Say as the type of Metaptera, 
thereby also establishing it as the type of Proptera (Article 67h). In 1969 (p. 24) 
Morrison stated: "Potamilus alatus Say, 1817 (monotype of Potamilus in 1 8 1 8)', thereby 
establishing alatus Say as the type of Potamilus. Morrison was the first person to 
include a species in Potamilus. This action has made Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818 and 

Rafinesque, 1819 objective synonyms. 



20 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



6. The taxon in question has been incorporated in modern systems of unionid 
nomenclature since Baker (1898, p. 97) as Metaptera, and recognized as Proptera since 
Simpson (1900, p. 566). Morrison's 1969 assumption that Potamilus alatus Rafinesque 
was the same as Say's species and his resurrection of Potamilus were not consistent with 
any usage by Rafinesque or subsequent authors. Rather than representing any sort of 
taxonomic revision, Morrison's action appears to have been solely to reintroduce an 
unused Rafinesque name. 

7. In accordance with the Code, Clarke (1986, p. 62) has noted the availability of 
Potamilus under Article 12a, and the validity of Morrison's type designation under the 
provision of Article 69a, particularly sections i(l), ii and vii. 

8. In 1971 the name Potamilus was adopted by Valentine & Stansbery (p. 25), and 
its usage has been promulgated by the latter, largely through personal communications 
to various authors. The name Proptera has remained in common usage within the 
literature, included in faunal surveys such as those of Clarke (1973, 1981); Johnson 
(1980); Gordon (1981, 1985); van der Schalie (1981), and in systematic reviews of 
unionids by Haas (1969a, p. 415), Heard & Guckert (1971, p. 340), Burch (1975, p. 21), 
and Davis & Fuller (1981, p. 219). In 1980 Yokes (p. 90) listed both generic names as 
valid, and Haas (1969b, p. N454) considered Potamilus to be a possible synonym of 
Ligumia Swanson, 1840. Johnson (1980, p. 128) discussed the usage of Proptera v. 
Potamilus, noting that priority of authorship was not in question. Citing Article 23, he 
concluded that resurrection of Potamilus had resulted in nomenclatural instability and 
confusion. These problems have not been resolved. 

9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Potamilus Rafinesque, 
1818 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the 
Principle of Homonymy; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Proptera 
Rafinesque, 1819 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by 
Herrmannsen (1847) Unio alatus Say, 1817; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name alatus Say, 
1817, as pubhshed in the binomen Unio alatus (specific name of the type species 
of Proptera Rafinesque, 1819); 

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invahd Generic Names in Zoology 
the name Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818, as suppressed in (1) above. 

References 

Baker, F. C. 1898. The MoUusca of the Chicago area, the Pelecypoda. Bulletin of the Natural 

History Survey of the Chicago Academy of Sciences, 3(1): 1-30. 
Burch, J. B. 1975. Freshwater unionacean clams (MoUusca: Pelecypoda) of North America. 

204 pp. Malacological Publications, Hamburg, Michigan. 
Clarke, A. H. 1973. The freshwater molluscs of the Canadian Interior Basin. Malacologia, 

13(1-2): 1-509. 

Clarke, A. H. 1981. The freshwater molluscs of Canada. 446 pp. National Museum of Natural 

Sciences of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. 
Clarke, A. H. 1986. Potamilus Rafinesque (1 818) versus Proptera Rafinesque (1819) (Unionidae). 

Malacology Data Net Ecosearch Series, 1(3): 58-65. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 .:■">■ . 21 

Conrad, T. A. 1834. New fresh water shells of the United States, with coloured illustrations, and a 

monograph of the genus Anculatus of Say; also a synopsis of the American naiades. 76 pp., 

8 pis. Dobson, Philadelphia. 
Davis, G. M. & Fuller, S. L. H. 1 98 1 . Genetic relationships amongst recent Unionacea (Bivalvia) 

of North America. Malacologia, 20(2): 217-253. 
Gordon, M. E. 1981. Recent Mollusca of Arkansas with annotations to systematics and 

zoogeography. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science, 34(1980): 56-62. 
Gordon, M. E. 1985, Mollusca of Frog Bayou, Arkansas. Nautilus, 99: 6-9. 
Haas, F. 1969a. Superfamilia Unionacea. In Das Tierreich. x, 633 pp. Berlin, Lieferung 88. 
Haas, F. 1969b. [Unionacea] Pp. N411-N417 In Moore, R.C. (Ed.). Treatise on invertebrate 

paleontology, part N. vol. 1, Mollusca 6. Bivalvia. Geological Society of America, 

University of Kansas Press, Lawrence. 
Heard, W. H. & Guckert, R. H. 1971. A re-evaluation of the recent Unionacea (Pelecypoda) of 

North America. Malacologia, 10(2): 333-353. 
Herrmannsen, A. N. 1847. Indices generum malacozoorum primordia. vol. 2. xlii, 717 pp. Cassellis. 
Johnson, R. I. 1975. First paper on the conchology of the United States by an American author, 

Thomas Say, 1817. Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 7: 

265-267. 

Johnson, R. 1. 1980. Zoogeography of North American Unionacea (Mollusca: Bivalvia) north of 
the maximum Pleistocene glaciation. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 
149(2): 77-189. 

Morrison, J. P. E. 1 969. The earliest names for the North American naiads. Annual Reports of the 

American Malacological Union, 1969: 22-24. 
Rafinesque, C. S. 1818a. Discoveries in natural history, made during a journey through the 

western region of the United States. American Monthly Magazine and Critical Revue, 3: 

354-356. 

Rafinesque, C. S. 1818b. General account of the discoveries made in the zoology of the western 

states. American Monthly Magazine and Critical Revue, 4: 106-107 
Rafinesque, C. S. 1819. Prodrome de 70 nouveaux genres d'animaux decouverts dans I'interieur 

des Etats-Unis d'Amerique, durant Tannee 1818. VI Classe. Mollusques. Journal de 

Physique, de Chimie, d'Histoire Naturelle, 88: 423-428. 
Rafinesque, C. S. 1820. Monographic des coquilles bivalves fluviatiles de la riviere Ohio, conte- 

nant douze genres et soixante-huit especes. Annales Generales des Sciences Physiques, 

5rM.Te/fc, 5(13): 287-326. 
Say, T. 1817. Conchology. In Nicholson, W. First American edition of the British encyclopedia or 

dictionary of arts and sciences, etc. Vol. 2 [B-E]. 1 5 pp. 4 pis. [unpaginated]. 
Simpson, C. T. 1900. Synopsis of the naiades, or pearly fresh-water mussels. Proceedings of the 

U.S. National Museum, 2(1205): 501-1044. 
Valentine, B. D. & Stansbery, D. H. 1971. An introduction to the naiades of the Lake Texoma 

region, Oklahoma, with notes on the Red River fauna. Sterkiana, 42: 1-40. 
Van der Schalie, H. 1981 . Mollusks in the Alabama River drainage: past and present. Sterkiana, 

71: 24-40. 

Vokes, H. E. 1980. Genera of the Bivalvia: a systematic and bibliographic catalogue (revised and 
updated), xxvii, 307 pp. Paleontological Research Institution, Ithaca, New York. 



22 

Case 2692 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



Mirochernes Beier, 1930 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): proposed 
confirmation of Chelanops dentatus Banks, 1895 as the type species 

Mark S. Harvey 

Western Australian Museum, Francis Street, Perth, Western Australia 6000, 
Australia 

Abstract. The purpose of this apphcation is to confirm that the nominal species 
Chelanops dentatus Banks, 1895 is the type of the pseudoscorpion genus Mirochernes 
Beier, 1 930. In his 1 930 definition of Mirochernes, Beier had misidentified the species he 
was studying which, in 1932, he named Semeiochernes militaris. 



1. Banks (1895, p. 6) described a new species of pseudoscorpion from U.S.A., 
Chelanops dentatus, based on a single male 'without locality (Hubbard); but probably 
from Florida'. Hoflf (1947, p. 502) referred to this specimen (in the Museum of 
Comparative Zoology, Harvard) as the lectotype but he subsequently (1958, p. 26) 
referred to 'the original specimen on which he [Banks] described the species'. The status 
of the specimen as holotype of Chelanops dentatus is unequivocal. 

2. Beier (1930, p. 216) established a genus Mirochernes and designated Chelanops 
dentatus Banks, 1895 as the type (and only) species. Beier's concept of 'C. dentatus' was 
based upon a male from Juan Vinas, Costa Rica (in the Naturhistorisches Museum, 
Wien). Beier later (1932, p. 180) designated the same specimen as the holotype of his 
new species Semeiochernes militaris, which is the type species by original designation 
(and monotypy) of Semeiochernes Beier, 1 932 (p. 1 80). At the same time, Beier ( 1 932, p. 
182) altered his definition of Mirochernes to conform with Banks' concept of Chelanops 
dentatus. It is probable that, when he saw the first diagrams of Chelanops dentatus [as 
Chernes dentatus (Banks)] pubHshed by Chamberlin (1931, p. 124), Beier realised the 
error he had made in his 1930 paper in misidentifying the male specimen from Juan 
Vinas as Chelanops dentatus. (The name Semeiochernes militaris is printed in Beier, 
1933, p. 541 , as nov. gen., nov. sp.; however, publication of this work had been delayed 
and Beier's 1932 work has priority, although this does not affect the case.) 

3. Mirochernes dentatus (Banks) has been reported several times in the primary 
literature, and was redescribed by Hoff"(1949, p. 478). It appears to be widely distri- 
buted in eastern U.S.A. (Hoff, 1958, p. 25) and, at present, is the only species included 
in the genus. Mirochernes is thus used in the sense of Beier (1932). 

4. It is clear that the nominal type species of Mirochernes Beier, 1 930 was based upon 
a misidentified specimen and the case is referred to the Commission under Article 70(b). 

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to confirm that the nominal species Chelanops dentatus Banks, 1895 is the type 
species of the genus Mirochernes Beier, 1930; 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



23 



(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Mirochernes 
Beier, 1930 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation, as con- 
firmed in (1) above, Chelanops dentatus Banks, 1895; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name dentatus 
Banks, 1895, as pubUshed in the binomen Chelanops dentatus (specific name of 
the type species of Mirochernes Beier, 1930). 

References 

Banks, N. 1895. Notes on the Pseudoscorpionida. Journal of the New York Entomological 
Society, 3: 1-13. 

Beier, M. 1930. Die Pseudoskorpione des Wiener Naturhistorischen Museums. IIL Annalen des 

Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien, 44: 199-222. 
Beier, M. 1932. Pseudoscorpionidea II. Suborder Cheliferinea. Tierreich, 58: 1-294. 
Beier, M. 1933. Revision der Chernetidae (Pseudoscorp.). Zoologische JahrbUcher (Syst.), 64: 

509-548. 

Cliamberlin, J. C. 1931. The arachnid order Chelonethida. Stanford University Publications. 

Biological Sciences, 7: 1-284. 
Hoff, C. C. 1947. The species of the pseudoscorpion genus Chelanops described by Banks. 

Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 98; 471-550. 
Hoff, C. C. 1949. The pseudoscorpions of Illinois. Bulletin of the Illinois Natural History Survey, 

24:413-498. 

HofF, C. C. 1958. List of the pseudoscorpions of North America north of Mexico. American 
Museum Novitates, No. 1875: 1-50. 



24 

Case 2725 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



Holostaspis subbadius var. robust ulus Berlese, 1904 (currently 
Macrocheles robustulus; Arachnida, Acarina): proposed conservation as 
the correct spelling of the specific name 

R.B. Halliday 

Division of Entomology, C.S.I. R.O., G.P.O. Box 1700, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601. 
Australia 

Abstract. The purpose of this appHcation is to conserve the widely used name 
Macrocheles robustulus (Berlese, 1904) for a mite of probable health importance. The 
specific name was originally published as rubustulus, presumably as a typographical 
error, but that spelling has not been used for over 30 years and then only by one author. 



1. Berlese (1904) described a new species of mite, Holostaspis subbadius. He simul- 
taneously described two new varieties of this species, var. scutatus and var. rubustulus 
(p. 264). The name rubustulus is spelt only once in this paper and was not subsequently 
used by Berlese either with this spelling or as robustulus. 

2. The spelhng rubustulus has been used in published works by only one other author 
(Sellnick, 1940, p. 84; 1958, p. 23) and in both papers is attributed to Berlese, 1904. In 
point of fact, Sellnick misapplied the name to a different species {Macrocheles rtiatrius 
Hull, 1 925) as pointed out by Krauss ( 1 970, p. 18). The spelling rubustulus has not been 
used since 1958. 

3. The three taxa described by Berlese are currently referred to the genus 
Macrocheles Latreille, 1829, as Macrocheles subbadius, M. scutatus and M. robustulus 
(sic). The species described as rubustulus has also been referred to as Macrocheles 
subbadius var. robustulus and M. robustulus. The spelling robustulus has been used in 
at least 35 papers from Leitner (1946, p. 85) onwards. The modern concept of the 
synonymy of this species dates from Axtell (1961, p. 748). Since that time the name 
robustulus has achieved widespread international usage. The name has been used by 
authors from U.S.A. (e.g. Axtell, 1961, p. 748; 1963, p. 628), Italy (e.g. Filipponi & 
Pegazzano, 1962, p. 230; Cicolani, 1979, p. 171), Israel (Costa, 1966, p. 532), Germany 
(Krauss, 1970, p. 18), Mexico (Halffter & Matthews, 1971, p. 160), India (Prasad, 1974, 
p. 155), U.S.S.R. (Bregetova, 1977, p. 374), New Zealand (Emberson, 1980, p. 136), 
U.K. (Luxton, 1982, p. 577; Hyatt & Emberson, 1988, p. 106) and Australia (Wallace, 
1986, p. 11). 

4. The mite species in question is believed to be of health importance. It is a predator 
which occurs in accumulations of dung, where it contributes to the biological control of 
the housefly Musca domestica (e.g. Axtell, 1961, 1963, 1969; Filipponi, 1964). For this 
reason it has been the subject of a variety of ecological and laboratory studies (e.g. 
Axtell, 1961; Filipponi, 1964; Filipponi & Mosna, 1968; Cicolani, 1979; Halliday & 
Holm, 1987). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47( 1 ) March 1 990 



25 



5. The type specimen of rubustulus (slide number 19/ 18; is m the Berlese Acaroieca, 
Florence, and is labelled robustulus in Berlese's handwriting. The same is true of two 
other slides (201/45 and 201/46) and two alcohol vials (3871873 and 3871874) (F. 
Pegazzano, personal communication, 1989). The name rubustulus was never used any- 
where else in Berlese's considerable acarological canon. No material bearing this name 
is known to exist in his collection (Castagnoh & Pegazzano, 1 985); on the other hand, a 
number of Berlese species names have the stem robust-. It appears that the spelling 
rubustulus in Berlese's 1904 paper was a typographical error. However, this spelling 
cannot be treated as an incorrect original spelling since the evidence for this is not to be 
found in the original publication itself, without recourse to any external source of 
information' (Article 32c of the Code). 

6. Under a strict interpretation of Article 33c, all usage of the name robustulus 
should be regarded as incorrect subsequent spelling. However, this spelling has 
achieved extensive and exclusive usage since 1958 and to revert to the original spelhng 
would cause needless confusion and would not be in the interests of stabihty of 
nomenclature. 

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the specific name rubustulus Berlese, 1904, 
as published in the trinomen Holostaspis subbadius var. rubustulus, is to be 
treated as an incorrect original spelling of the name robustulus; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name robustulus, as 
a correction of rubustulus Berlese, 1904, as published in the trinomen Holostaspis 
subbadius var. rubustulus; 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology 
the name rubustulus Berlese, 1904, as published in the trinomen Holostaspis 
subbadius var. rubustulus, and as ruled in (1) above to be treated as an incorrect 
original spelling of robustulus. 

Acknowledgement 

I would like to thank Drs F. Pegazzano, R. C. Axtell and K. H. L. Key for providing 
valuable assistance in the preparation of this case. 

References ^ 

Axtell, R. C. 1961. New records of North American Macrochelidae (Acarina: Mesostigmata) 
and their predation rates on the housefly. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 
54: 748. 

Axtell, R. C. 1963. Acarina occurring in domestic animal manure. Annals of the Entomological 
Society of America, 56: 628-633. 

Axtell, R. C. 1969. Macrochelidae (Acarina: Mesostigmata) as biological control agents for 
synanthropic flies. Pp. 401-416 in Evans, G. O. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second Inter- 
national Congress of Acarology (Sutton Bonington, 1967). Akademiai Kiado, Budapest. 

Berlese, A. 1904. Acari nuovi. Manipulus IIus. Redia, 1: 258-280. 

Bregetova, N. G. 1977. Family Macrochelidae Vitzthum, 1930. Pp. 346-41 1 in Ghilyarov, M. S. 

& Bregetova, N. G. (Eds.), Key to the Soil Inhabiting Mites. Mesostigmata. Nauka, 

Leningrad. [In Russian.] 
Castagnoli, M. & Pegazzano, F. 1985. Catalogue of the Berlese Acaroteca. 490 pp. Istituto 

Sperimentale per la Zoologia Agraria, Firenze. 



26 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



Cicolani, B. 1979. The intrinsic rate of natural increase in dung macrochelid mites, predators of 

Musca domestica eggs. Bollettino di Zoologia, 46: 1 7 1-1 78. 
Costa, M. 1966. Notes on macrochelids associated with manure and coprid beetles in Israel. I. 

Macrocheles robustulus (Berlese, 1904), development and biology. Acarologia, 8: 532-548. 
Emberson, R. M. 1980. Macrochelidae from the Kermadec Islands and a key to species of 

Macrocheles Latreille from the New Zealand region (Acari: Mesostigmata). New Zealand 

Entomologist, 7: 135-138. 
Filipponi, A. 1964. The feasibility of mass producing macrochelid mites for field trials against 

houseflies. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 31: 499-501. 
Filipponi, A. & Pegazzano, F. 1962. Specie Italiane del gruppo-g/a6er (Acarina, Mesostigmata, 

Macrochelidae, Macrocheles). Redia, 47: 21 1-238. 
Filipponi, A. & Mosna, B. 1968. Influenza di fattori ecologici e genetici sulla natalita e mortalita di 

Macrocheles robustulus (Berlese, 1904). Annali dell'Istituto Superiore Sanita, 4: 551-571 . 
Halifter, G. & Matthews, E. G. 1971. The natural history of dung beetles. A supplement on 

associated biota. Revista Latino-Americana de Microbiologia, 13: 147-163. 
Halliday, R. B. & Holm, E. 1987. Mites of the family Macrochelidae as predators of two species of 

dung-breeding pest flies. Entomophaga, 32: 333-338. 
Hyatt, K. H. & Emberson, R. M. 1988. A review of the Macrochelidae (Acari: Mesostigmata) of 

the British Isles. Bulletin of the British Museum ( Natural History) ( Zoology), 54: 63-1 25. 
Krauss, W. 1970. Die europaischen Arten der Gattungen Macrocheles Latreille 1829 und 

Geholaspis Berlese 1918. Acarologie. Schriftenreihe fiir Vergleichende Milbenkunde, 14: 

2-43, 59-60. 

Leitner, E. 1946. Zur Kenntnis der Milbenfauna auf Diingerstatten. Zentralblatt fiir das 

Gesamtgebiet der Entomologie, 1: 75-96, 129-156. 
Luxton, M. 1982. Studies on the invertebrate fauna of New Zealand peat soils. II. — Restiad 

peats. Revue d'Ecologie et de Biologic du Sol, 19: 553-578. 
Prasad, V. 1974. A Catalogue of Mites of India. 320 pp. Indira, Ludhiana, India. 
Sellnick, M. 1940. Die Milbenfauna Islands. Meddelanden fran Goteborgs Musei Zoologiska 

Avdelning, No. 83. Goteborgs Kungl. Vetenskaps- och Vitterhets-Samhdlles Handlingar, 

(5),B,6(14): 1-129. 

Sellnick, M. 1958. Milben aus landwirtschaftlichen Betrieben Nordschwedens. Meddelanden 

frdn Staten Vdxtskyddsanstalt. Stockholm, 11: 9-59. 
Wallace, M. M. H. 1986. Some macrochelid mites (Acari: Macrochelidae) associated with 

Australian dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Acarologia, 27: 3-15. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47( 1 ) March 1990 



27 



Case 2721 ■ ' 

Bathynomm A. Milne Edwards, 1879 (Crustacea, Isopoda): proposed 
precedence over Palaega Woodward, 1870 

Joel W. Martin & Hans G. Kuck v; / : ■ 

Life Sciences Division, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 
900 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90007, U.S.A. ■. 

Abstract. The purpose of this appHcation is to conserve the name of a well known genus 
of deep-sea isopods, Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879. It is threatened by the fossil 
genus Palaega Woodward, 1870, with which it is sometimes synonymized. 



1 . Alphonse Milne Edwards ( 1 879, p. 2 1 ) first recognized the genus Bathynomus and 
described the genus and its type species, Bathynomus giganteus, from a single immature 
male, which is therefore the holotype. No illustration was given until the pubhcation of 
Filhofs popular account of deep-sea life (Filhol, 1885, p. 147). About nine extant 
species and several possible fossil species are known (see Bruce, 1986, p. 126; Hessler, 
1969, p. R374; Wetzer, 1986, p. 26). Because of the large size of species in this genus (up 
to 46 cm body length in B. giganteus; Wetzer, 1 986), Bathynomus is a widely recognized 
name in deep-sea biology and is often included in popular accounts of Crustacea and of 
deep-sea life (e.g. Schmitt, 1965; Holthuis & Mikulka, 1972; Wetzer, 1986). The genus 
is included as an example of the Isopoda and as an example of deep-sea crustaceans in 
most invertebrate text books (e.g. Barnes, 1987, p. 769). The large size has also made 
Bathynomus an ideal subject for demonstrating isopod morphology and has facilitated 
studies on isopod physiology. It is probably the most widely known marine isopod 
genus. As far as we know, Bathynomus is the only name that has been used for these 
isopods since 1879 (Richardson, 1905, p. 130; Holthuis & Mikulka, 1972, p. 575). 

2. The genus Palaega was established by Woodward (1870, p. 496), based on four 
specimens of the posterior part of a Cretaceous isopod for which he established the 
species P. carteri (p. 496). Because the posterior part of isopods is similar in a great 
variety of genera and families, many fossil isopods have subsequently been placed in 
the genus Pa/oegfl (see Hessler, 1969, p. R380; Wieder & Feldmann, \9'&9). Palaega 'isoi 
doubtful validity (Hessler, 1969, p. R380) and is acknowledged by paleontologists to be 
'a form genus including individuals from several flabelliferan families distinguished 
from one another by parts rarely seen in fossil specimens such as the mouthparts' 
(Wieder & Feldmann, 1989, p. 78). 

3. Imaizumi (1953) placed fossil fragments of a pleon from the Miocene of Japan in 
Bathynomus and suggested that Woodward's specimens should be placed in Bathyno- 
mus rather than Palaega. Recent finds of well preserved fossils described as Palaega 
{P. goedertorum Wieder & Feldmann, 1989) suggest that at least some fossils currently 
placed in Palaega and the extant genus Bathynomus might be equivalent, although the 
principal distinguishing characters needed for precise generic placement are not visible 
in the fossils. For example, even on the best preserved fossils, no ventral morphology 



28 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



can be discerned, and mouthpart and pleopod morphology is unknown. Despite this 
and the statement quoted in para. 2 above, Wieder & Feldmann (1989, pp. 73, 75) 
treated Palaega as the senior synonym of Bathynomus. We consider that this synonymy 
is unwarranted on morphological grounds and is unlikely to be followed by other 
workers. 

4. Because Bathynomus is a well known and clearly defined genus, whereas Palaega 
is a vague taxon based on incomplete fossils, we consider that it would be in the interests 
of maintaining stability of usage and avoiding confusion for the name Bathynomus to 
be given precedence over Palaega whenever these two genera are considered synonyms. 

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to give precedence to the name Bathynomus A. Milne 
Edwards, 1879 over the name Palaega Woodward, 1870 whenever the two are 
considered to be synonyms; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 (gender: masculine), type species by 

monotypy Bathynomus giganteus A. Milne Edwards, 1879, with the endorse- 
ment that it is to be given precedence over Palaega Woodward, 1870 
whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; 
(h) Palaega Woodward, 1870 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy 
Palaega carteri Woodward, 1870, with the endorsement that it is not to be 
given priority over the name Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 whenever 
the two names are considered to be synonyms; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) giganteus A. Milne Edwards, 1 879, as published in the binomen Bathynomus 

giganteus (specific name of the type species of Bathynomus A. Milne 
Edwards, 1879); 

(h) carteri Woodward, 1870, as published in the binomen Palaega carteri 
(specific name of the type species of Palaega Woodward, 1870). 

Acknowledgements 

We thank R. C. Brusca and L. B. Holthuis for helpful advice in the preparation of this 
request. 

References 

Barnes, R. D. 1987. Invertebrate Zoology, Ed. 5. 893 pp. Saunders College Publishing, 
Philadelphia. 

Bruce, N. L. 1986. Cirolanidae (Crustacea: Isopoda) of Australia. Records of the Australian 

Museum, Supplement 6: 1-239. 
Filhol, H. 1 885. La vie au fond des mers. Les explorations sousmarines et les voyages du Travailleur 

et du Talisman, viii + 303 pp. Masson, Paris. 
Hessler, R. R. 1969. Peracarida. Pp. R360-393, In Moore, R.C. (Ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate 

Paleontology. Part R, Arthropoda 4. Geological Society of America and University of 

Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas. 
Holthuis, L. B. & Mikulka, W. R. 1972. Notes on the deep-sea isopods of the genus Bathynomus 

A. Milne Edwards, 1879. Bulletin of Marine Science, 22: 575-591. 
Imaizumi, R. 1953. Note on Bathynomus sp., (Crustacea) from the Miocene of Japan. Short 

Papers, Institute of Geology and Paleontology, Tohoku University, Sendai, No. 5: 84-87. 



Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 29 

Milne Edwards, A. 1 879. Sur un isopode gigantesque des grandes profondeurs de la mer. Comptes 

Rendus de I'Academie des Sciences, Paris, 88: 21-23. 
Richardson, H. 1 905. Monograph on the isopods of North America. Bulletin of the United States 

National Museum, No. 54, vii-liii + 1-121 . 
Sclimitt, W. L. 1965. Crustaceans. 204 pp. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 
Wetzer, R. 1986. Bathynomus, a Hving sea monster. Terra, Natural History Museum of Los 

Angeles County, 25(2): 26-29. 
Wieder, R. W. & Feldmann, R. M. 1989. Palaega goedertorum, a fossil isopod (Crustacea) from 

Late Eocene to Early Miocene rocks of Washington State. Journal of Paleontology, 63(1): 

73-80. 

Woodward, H. 1 870. Contributions to British fossil Crustacea. Geological Magazine, 7: 493-497. 



30 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



Case 2700 

Carcinochelis Fieber, 1861 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed designation 
of Carcinochelis alutaceus Handlirsch, 1897 as the type species 

Richard C. Froeschner 

Department of Entomology , Stop 127, U.S. National Museum of Natural 
History, Washington, D.C. 20560. U.S.A. 

Nicholas A. Kormilev 

5924 Gulfport Boulevards., Gulfport, Florida 33707, U.S.A. 

Abstract. The purpose of this apphcation is to conserve the estabhshed meaning of 
the ambush bug genus Carcinochelis Fieber, 1861 by the designation of C. alutaceus 
HandUrsch, 1897 as the type species. The first included nominal species was 
C. binghami Sharp, 1897, but acceptance of this as the type species would make 
Carcinochelis a senior subjective synonym of Carcinocoris Handlirsch, 1 897, and would 
upset the usage of both generic names. 



1 . Fieber (1 861 , p. 34) erected the new genus Carcinochelis in a key without included 
species. Walker (1873, p. 170) included Carcinochelis in a modified version of Fieber's 
key, and also assigned no species to it. Lethierry & Severin (1896, p. 29) included under 
this genus 'alutaceus Fieber (non descriptus) — Patria ignota', a nomen nudum. 

2. Sharp (1897, pp. 35-36) discussed Carcinochelis and assigned his new species 
binghami to it — thus making binghami the type species by virtue of its being the first 
included nominal species. 

3. In the same year Handlirsch (1897a, pp. 23-26) also recognized Fieber's 
Carcinochelis, discussed it without included species, and described the related genus 
Carcinocoris with his own two new species castetsi and erinaceus. Later that year 
HandUrsch (1897b) conceded that Sharp's publication had preceded his earUer one by 
making his own species erinaceus a junior synonym of Sharp's binghami when he 
transferred the latter to Carcinocoris. Distant (1903, p. 151) designated C. castetsi as 
the type species of Carcinocoris. 

4. Handlirsch (1897b, p. 222) described as the only nominal species included under 
Carcinochelis his Carcinochelis alutaceus, based on Fieber's specimen bearing that 
unpublished name. For over 90 years subsequent authors have followed Handlirsch's 
actions. Authors who have used Carcinochelis in the sense of alutaceus include Distant 
(1909), Bergroth (1917) and Hsiao & Liu (1979). 

5. As pointed out by Maa & Lin (1956, p. 146) — who also followed HandUrsch — 
acceptance of Sharp's 1897 fixation of binghami as the type species of Carcinochelis 
would make this name a senior subjective synonym of the widely used genus Carcino- 
coris, and would require proposal of a new generic name for alutaceus and its allies. 
This action would interrupt 90-plus years of uniform treatment. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



31 



6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type species for 
the nominal genus Carcinochelis Fieber, 1861, and to designate Carcinochelis 
alutaceus Handlirsch, 1897 as the type species; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Carcinochelis 
Fieber, 1861 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1) above 
Carcinochelis alutaceus Handlirsch, 1 897; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name alutaceus 
Handlirsch, 1897, as pubHshed in the binomen Carcinochelis alutaceus (specific 
name of the type species of Carcmoc/ze/w Fieber, 1861). 

References 

Bergroth, E. 1917. Notes sur le genre Carcinochelis Fieb. et description d'une espece nouvelledes 
lies Philippines [Hem. Macrocephalidae]. Bulletin de la Societe Entomologique de France, 16: 
282-284. 

Distant, W. L. 1 903-1 904. Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma, Rhynchota, vol. 2, 
xvii + 503 pp. Taylor & Francis, London. [A note on p. iii states that pp. 1-242 appeared in 
1903]. 

Distant, W. L. 1909. New Malayan Rhynchota. Transactions of the Entomological Society of 
London, 3: 385-396. 

Handlirsch, A. 1897a. Carcinocoris, ein neues Hemipteren-Genus, und Bemerkungen iiber die 

Raubbeine der Insecten. Verhandlungen der Kaiserlich Kdniglichen Zoologisch-Botanischen 

Gesellschaft in Wien, 47: 23-26. 
Handlirsch, A. 1897b. Monographic der Phymatiden. Annalen des Kaiserlich Kdniglichen 

Natiirhistorischen Hofmuseums, 12: 127-230. 
Hsiao, T.-Y. & Liu, S.-L. 1979. New species and new records of Phymatidae from China 

(Hemiptera: Heteroptera). Acta Entomologica Sinica, 22: 169-174. 
Lethierry, L. & Severin, G. 1896. Catalogue generate des Hemipteres. Vol. 3, 275 pp. Musee Royal 

d'Histoire Naturelle de Belgique, Bruxelles. 
Maa, T.-C. & Lin, K.-S. 1956. A synopsis of the Old World Phymatidae (Hem.). Quarterly 

Journal of the Taiwan Museum, 9: 109-154. 
Sharp, D. 1897. Description of an anomalous hemipterous insect. Entomologist's Monthlv 

Magazine, (2)8: 35-36. 

Walker, F. 1873. Catalogue of the specimens of Hemiptera Heteroptera in the collection of the 
5n7/s/z M«5eMW, Part 6, 210 pp. British Museum, London. « 



32 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



Case 2717 

Steno attenuatus Gray, 1846 (currently Stenella attenuata; Mammalia, 
Cetacea): proposed conservation of the specific name 

William F. Perrin 

Southwest Fisheries Center, P.O. Box 271, La Jolla, California 92038, U.S.A. 

Abstract. The purpose of this appHcation is to conserve the specific name of the pan- 
tropical spotted dolphin, Stenella attenuata (Gray, 1846), the type species of Stenella 
Gray, 1866. The specific name is threatened by three subjective synonyms, only one of 
which has been mentioned (as a probable synonym) during this century. 



1. The currently used specific name of the pantropical spotted dolphin, Stenella 
attenuata (Gray, 1846), has a number of subjective synonyms. These include Delphinus 
velox G. Cuvier, 1829, D. pseudodelphis Schlegel, 1841, Z). brevimanus Wagner, 1846, 
and Steno capensis Gray, 1865. It is not known which of the two names attenuatus 
Gray, 1846 or brevimanus Wagner, 1846 has priority. 

2. The name Delphinus velox was proposed for a new species of dolphin by G. Cuvier 
in 1829. It was used by Fischer (1830, p. 455), F. Cuvier (1836, p. 154), Rapp (1837. 
p. 30), and was mentioned by Gray (1850, p. 132, where it appeared as a 'species 
requiring further examination') and Pucheran (1856, pp. 453-456). Trouessart (1898, 
p. 1035) placed it tentatively as a synonym of D. malayanus Lesson in Lesson & 
Garnot, 1826 (p. 184, pi. 9, fig. 5), considered by Perrin et al. (1987, p. 1 1 1) to be a 
nomen nudum (but more properly a nomen dubium). Ellerman & Morrison-Scott 
(1951, p. 732) repeated Trouessart's synonymy. Hershkovitz (1966, p. 32) placed 
D. velox as a synonym of D. dubius G. Cuvier, 1812 (p. 14; also considered to be a 
nomen nudum by Perrin et al. (1987, p. Ill), but, again, more properly a nomen 
dubium). Perrin et al. (1987, p. 112) identified the holotype specimen of D. velox (a 
mounted skin in the Museum National d'Histoire naturelle in Paris, No. 17 of the 
Catalogue de la Galerie de Zoologie) as a pantropical spotted dolphin, Stenella 
attenuata. The specific name velox G. Cuvier, 1829 is therefore a senior subjective 
synonym of attenuatus Gray, 1846, but the former has not been applied to spotted 
dolphins during this century. 

3. The name Delphinus pseudodelphis was used by Wagner (1846, p. 332) in his 
revision of Schreber's Sdugethiere. Wagner ascribed the name to Wiegmann and stated 
that it was based on the plate (pi. 358) of three views of a skull, which he was now 
pubHshing, and that Wiegmann had not provided a description. Volume 7 of the work, 
in which the name appeared, was begun by Wiegmann, continued by Stannius, and 
finished by Wagner (Wagner, 1 846, p. iv) and was finally published in 1 846 (see also 
Sherborn, 1891, p. 591). Wiegmann's plates, however, were ready several years earlier, 
and Schlegel (1841, p. 22) referred to 'Delphinus pseudodelphis, Wiegman [sic] im 
Schreber, Saugth. Tab. 358'. Schlegel compared the skull with that of other species and 
considered that it was closest to D. malayanus. He ascribed a skull in the collections of 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



33 



the Leiden museum to the species. Wagner (1 846, p. 332) further described the skull and 
cited Schlegel's paragraph. Schlegel's 1841 work makes the name pseudodelphis avail- 
able and it should therefore be attributed to him, although hitherto authors have 
ascribed authorship to Wiegmann '1840 or earlier' (Hershkovitz, 1966, p. 32), or 
Wiegmann in Schreber ( 1 846). Gray ( 1 850, p. 1 30), True (1889, pp. 67, 69) and Beddard 
(1900, p. 260) considered it to be a synonym of attenuatus, while Trouessart (1898, 
p. 1035) thought it was a synonym of malayanus. Later, True (1894, pp. 36-37) con- 
sidered pseudodelphis to be a nomen nudum. Oliver (1922, p. 583) stated that 'probably 
it should be united with S / tenella] malayanus Lesson (1826) and S.fraenatus F. Cuvier 
(1836)' (actually to G. Cuvier, 1829, regarded by Perrin et al. (1987, p. 1 12) as 

a junior synonym of Delphinus (now Stenella) frontalis G. Cuvier, 1829). Hershkovitz 
(1966, p. 32) placed the species in the synonymy of dubius G. Cuvier, 1812. Perrin et al. 
(1987, p. 113) identified the skull in the original illustration pubUshed by Wagner as 
that of a pantropical spotted dolphin, the name pseudodelphis therefore being a senior 
subjective synonym of attenuatus Gray, 1 846. They recommended that as pseudodelphis 
had been discussed only once in this century (by Oliver, 1 922, p. 583, in a qualified way, 
as mentioned above) it should not be resurrected. 

4. The name Delphinus brevimanus was used by Wagner in 1846 in the caption to a 
colored plate of a dolphin (pi. 361, fig. 2) and in the index of plates (p. 427). A plate of a 
dolphin (pi. 21, fig. 2), together with views of a skull (pi. 23, figs. 7 and 8), both labeled 
'Dauphin a Petites Pectorales', appeared in the zoological part of the Atlas of the 
Voyage au Pole Sud, Astrolabe et la Zelee (Hombron & Jacquinot, 1842-1853). 
Subsequently, the text of the zoological part was published (1853) and the species was 
referred to (p. 38) as 'Dauphin a Petites Pectorales Hombron & Jacquinot, pi. 2 1 , fig. 2; 
Delphinus brevimanus Wagner, Schreb. Saug., pi. 361, fig. 2'. The skull figured by 
Hombron & Jacquinot is No. 1 882-1 1 3 in the Museum National d'Histoire naturelle in 
Paris. Gray based his species Delphinus? microbachium (1850, p. 1 19) on this skull and 
referred to Hombron & Jacquinot's plates; he subsequently included the species as 
Steno? brevimanus in his 1866 Catalogue of Seals and Whales (p. 236; reference 1866a) 
but not in his 1868 Synopsis. D. brevimanus was also included by Gervais (1877, p. 605). 
True ( 1 889, p. 67) placed it in the synonymy of malayanus, as also did Trouessart (1 898, 
p. 1035). It was not recognized by Beddard (1900). Hershkovitz (1966, p. 33) thought it 
a synonym of dubius, while Perrin et al. (1987, p. 114) placed it in the synonymy of 
attenuatus. The name brevimanus has not been used as a senior synonym during this 
century. 

5. The specific name attenuatus was first used by Gray in 1843 (p. 105) in combi- 
nation with Delphinus but without description or figure and it was, therefore, a nomen 
nudum. Gray subsequently (1846, p. 44, pi. 28), based attenuatus on a juvenile skull 
of unknown provenance. No. 347b, in the British Museum (Natural History) and 
included it in his new genus Steno (1846, p. 43). The specific name attenuatus has been 
widely used for the pantropical spotted dolphin for many years. After its application by 
True to spotted dolphins from the Atlantic ( 1 889, p. 165), the Indian Ocean ( 1 894) and 
the Pacific (1903, p. 43), it was used by Fraser (1950), Hohn & Hammond (1985), 
Honacki et al. (1982, p. 296), the International Whaling Commission (1977-1988), 
Jones et al. (1986, p. 17), Leatherwood et al. (1983, p. 230), Miyazaki et al. (1974), 
Nishiwaki (1967, pp. 5, 36), Nishiwaki et al. (1965), Nowak & Paradiso (1983, p. 877 
and others), Perrin (1975a, pp. 125, 128; 1975b, pp. 1061-1063; 1984, pp. 137, 138; 



34 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



1988), Perrin et al. (1976; 1979; 1985, pp. 4, 21, 23), Rice (1977, pp. 8, 13) and others. 
Substitution of any of the synonyms velox, pseudodelphis or brevimanus for attenuatus 
would upset long-standing nomenclatural stability for this well-known pantropical 
species and cause considerable confusion in the zoological literature, in legal and 
institutional documentation, and in the legislative language relating to conservation 
and management of the species. 

6. The name Delphinus capensis Gray, 1 828 (p. 2) was based on a dolphin skin from 
the Cape of Good Hope in the British Museum (Natural History). Subsequently, Gray 
(1865, p. 522) proposed the name Steno capensis for a dolphin skull in the South 
African Museum, Cape Town which was later presented to the British Museum 
(Natural History). The two specific names capensis were proposed for species included 
in different genera {Delphinus Linnaeus, 1758 and Steno Gray, 1846) and are still 
regarded as distinct today. Delphinus capensis Gray, 1 828 is presently treated as a junior 
synonym of Delphinus delphis Linnaeus, 1758 (Hershkovitz, 1 966, p. 43). True ( 1 889, p. 
62), Hershkovitz ( 1 966, p. 33) and Perrin ( 1 987, p. 1 50) listed S. capensis Gray, 1 865 as a 
junior subjective synonym of attenuatus. There is thus no doubt that Delphinus capensis 
Gray, 1 828 is not a senior subjective synonym or secondary homonym of Steno capensis 
Gray, 1865. 

7. The name Prodelphinus was proposed by Gervais (in Van Beneden & Gervais, 
1880, p. 604) for a genus distinct from Delphinus by the absence of deep palatine lateral 
grooves. True (1889, pp. 61-62) included 23 species in the genus, including attenuatus. 
Subsequently, Oliver (1922, p. 582) adopted Stenella, a name proposed by Gray 
(1866b, p. 21 3) for the single species Steno attenuatus, as a name senior to Prodelphinus. 
Stenella was poorly defined and was not hsted by Simpson (1945) but under Article 
12(b)(5) of the Code is an available name. Following its use by Iredale & Troughton 
(1934, p. 65), Fraser (1950), Fraser & Purves (1960), and others it has been universally 
accepted (see, for example, Corbet & Hill (1986, p. 123)). Steno Gray, 1846 is now 
confined to a single species, Steno bredanensis Lesson, 1828 (a replacement name for 
Delphinus rostratus Desmarest, 1817 which was preoccupied), the rough-toothed 
dolphin with a wide distribution in tropical and warm temperate seas (Hershkovitz, 
1966, p. 15). 

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following specific names for the 
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of 
Homonymy: 

(a) velox G. Cuvier, 1829, as pubhshed in the binomen Delphinus velox; 
{\)) pseudodelphis Schlegel, 1841, as published in the binomen Delphinus 
pseudodelphis; 

(c) brevimanus Wagner, 1846, as published in the binomen Delphinus 
brevimanus; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Stenella 
Gray, 1 866 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Steno attenuatus Gray, 
1846; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name attenuatus 
Gray, 1 846, as published in the binomen Steno attenuatus (specific name of the 
type species of Stenella Gray, 1866); 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



-35. 



(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology 
the following names: 

(a) velox G. Cuvier, 1829, as published in the binomen Delphinus velox and as 

suppressed in (l)(a) above; 
(h) pseudodelphis Schlegel, 1841, as published in the binomen Delphinus 

pseiidodelphis and as suppressed in ( 1 )(b) above; 
(c) brevimanus Wagner, 1 846, as published in the binomen Delphinus brevimanus 

and as suppressed in ( 1 )(c) above. 

References r'- ■ ^ i ' 

Beddard, F. E. 1900. A Book of Whales. 320 pp. John Murray, London. 

Corbet, G. B. & Hill, J. E. 1986. A World List of Mammalian Species. Ed. 2. 254 pp. Facts on File 
Publications & British Museum (Natural History), New York & London. 

Cuvier, F. 1836. De ihistoire naturelle des Cetaces. iv, 416 pp.; atlas 8 pp., 22 pis. Roret, Paris. 

Cuvier, G. 1812. Rapport fait a la classe de Sciences mathematiques et physiques, sur divers 
Cetaces pris sur les cotes de France, principalement sur ceux qui sont echoues pres de 
Paimpol, le 7 Janvier 1812. Annales du Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 19: 1-16. 

Cuvier, G. 1829. Le regne animal distribue d'apres son organisation, pour servir de base a I'histoire 
naturelle des animaux et d' introduction d d'anatomie comparee. 2nd Ed., vol. 1. 584 pp. 
Deterville, Paris. 

Ellerman, J. R. & Morrison-Scott, T. C. S. 1951. Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian Mammals 

1758-1946. 810 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. 
Fischer, J. B. 1830. Addenda, Emendanda et Index ad Synopsis Mammalium. Pp. 329-456, 

657-752. Cotta, Stuttgart. 
Fraser, F. C. 1950. Description of a dolphin Stenella frontalis (Cuvier) from the coast of French 

Equatorial Africa. Pp. 61-84, pis. 6-9 in Atlantide Report No. 1. Scientific Results of the 

Danish Expedition to the Coast of tropical West Africa 1945-1946. Danish Science Press, 

Copenhagen. 

Fraser, F. C. & Purves, P. E. 1960. Hearing in Cetaceans. Evolution of the accessory air sacs and 

the structure and function of the outer and middle ear in Recent cetaceans. Bulletin of the 

British Museum (Natural History) , Zoology, 7(1): 1-140, 53 pis. 
Gervais, H. 1880. Pp. 601-634 in Van Beneden,' [P.] J. & Gervais, P. [1868-1880]. Osteographie 

des Cetaces vivants et fossiles. 634 pp., 64 pis. (published and distributed 1868-1869). 

Bertrand, Paris. 

Gray, J. E. 1 828. Spicilegia Zoologica; or original figures and short systematic descriptions of new 

unfigured animals. Part 1, 8 pp., 6 pis. Treuttel, Wurtz & Co., & W. Wood, London. 
Gray, J. E. 1843. List of the Mammalia in the Museum. British Museum, London, xxviii, 216 pp. 
Gray, J. E. 1846. On the Cetaceous animals. Pp. 13-53, 37 pis. in Richardson, J. & Gray, J. E. 

(Eds.), The Zoology of the Voyage of H. M.S. 'Erebus ' and 'Terror ' during the years 1839 to 

1843, vol. 1, Mammalia, Birds. Janson, London. 
Gray, J. E. 1850. Catalogue of the specimens of Mammalia in the collections of the British 

Museum. Part 1, Cetacea. xii, 153 pp., 8 pis. British Museum, London. 
Gray, J. E. 1865. Notices of a new genus of delphinoid whales from the Cape of Good Hope, and 

of other cetaceans from the same seas. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 

1865: 522-529. 

Gray, J. E. 1 866a. Catalogue of Seals and Whales in the British Museum. 402 pp. British Museum, 
London. 

Gray, J. E. 1 866b. Notes on the skulls of dolphins, or bottlenose whales, in the Bridsh Museum. 

Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1866: 21 1-218. 
Gray, J. E. 1868. Synopsis of the species of whales and dolphins in the collection of the British 

Museum. 10 pp., 37 pis. Quaritch, London. 
Hershkovitz, P. 1966. Catalog of living whales. United States National Museum, Bulletin, 246: 

1-259. 



36 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



Hohn, A. A. & Hammond, P. S. 1985. Early postnatal growth of the spotted dolphin, Stenella 
attenuata, in the offshore eastern tropical Pacific. Fishery Bulletin, 83 (4): 553-566. 

Hombron, |J. B.| & Jacquinot, H. 1842-1853. Atlas of the Voyage au Pole Sudet dans ioceanie 
sur les corvettes 'I'Atrolabe' et 'la Zelee' pendant les annees 1837-1838-1839-1840 sous le 
commandement de M. J. Dumont-D'Urville. Zoologie, part 1 (Vertebrata). 70 pis. Gide & 
Baudry, Paris. 

Honacki, J. H., Kinman, K. E. & KoeppI, J. W. 1982. Mammal Species of the World. A laxonomic 
and geographic reference. 694 pp. Allen Press & the Association of Systematics Collections. 
Lawrence, Kansas. 

International Whaling Commission. 1977-1988. Reports of the International Whaling 
Commission. 

Iredale, T. & Troughton, E. Le G. 1934. A check-list of the mammals recorded from Australia. 

The Australian Museum, Sydney, Memoir 6, xi, 122 pp. 
Jacquinot, H. & Pucheran, J. 1853. In Hombron, [J.B.] & Jacquinot, H. Voyage au Pole Sudet 

dans I'oceanie sur les corvettes Astrolabe' et 'la Zelee\ vol. 3 (Zoologie), Mammiferes et 

Oiseaux. 107 pp. Gide & Baudry, Paris. 
Jones, J. K., Jr., Carter, D. C, Genoways, R. H., Hoffman, R. S., Rice, D. W. & Jones, C. 1986. 

Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 1896. Occasional Papers. 

The Museum, Texas Tech University, No. 107. 22 pp. 
Leatherwood, S. & Reeves, R. R. 1982. The Sierra Club Handbook of Whales & Dolphins. 302 pp. 

Sierra Club Books, San Francisco. 
Miyazaki, N., Kasuya, T. & Nishiwaki, M. 1974. Distribution and migration of two species of 

Stenella in the Pacific coast of Japan. Scientific Report of the Whales Research Institute, 

Tokyo, 26: 227-243. 

Nishiwaki, M. 1967. Distribution and migration of marine mammals in the North Pacific area. 

Bulletin of the Ocean Research Institute, University of Tokyo, \. 1-64. 
Nishiwaki, M., Nakajima, M. & Karniya, T. 1965. A rare species of dolphin {Stenella attenuata) 

from Arari, Japan. Scientific Report of the Whales Research Institute, Tokyo, 19: 53-64. 
Nowak, R. M. & Paradiso, J. L. 1 983. Walker 's Mammals of the World. 4th Ed., vol. 2. 1 362, xxv 

pp. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore & London. 
Oliver, W. R. B. 1922. A review of the Cetacea of the New Zealand seas. Proceedings of the 

Zoological Society of London, 1922 (3): 557-585. 
Perrin, W. F. 1975a. Variation of spotted and spinner porpoise (genus Stenella) in the eastern 

Pacific and Hawaii. Bulletin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Technical Series, 21: 

vi, 1-206. 

Perrin, W. F. 1975b. Distribution and differentiation of populations of dolphins of the genus 
Stenella in the eastern tropical Pacific. Journal of the Fisheries Board of Canada, 32 (7): 
1059-1067. 

Perrin, W. F. 1984. Patterns of geographical variation in small cetaceans. Acta Zoologica 
Fennica, 172: 137-140. 

Perrin, W. F. 1988. Dolphins, porpoises and whales. An action plan for the conservation of 

biological diversity: 1988-1992. 29 pp. International Union for the Conservation of Nature 

and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland. 
Perrin, W. F., Coe, J. M. & Zweifel, J. R. 1976. Growth and reproduction of the spotted 

porpoise, Stenella attenuata, in the offshore eastern tropical Pacific. Fishery Bulletin, 74 (2): 

229-269. 

Perrin, W. F., Mitchell, E. D., Mead, J. G., Caldwell, D. K., Caldwell, M. C, van Bree, P. J. H. & 
Dawbin, W. H. 1987. Revision of the spotted dolphins, Stenella spp. Marine Mammal 
Science, 3(2): 99-170. 

Perrin, W. F., Scott, M. D., Walker, G. J. & Cass, V. L. 1985. Review of Geographical Stocks of 
Tropical Dolphins {Stenella spp. and Delphinus delphis) in the Eastern Pacific. National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Report of the National Marine Fisheries Service 
(U.S. Department of Commerce, Seattle), No. 28. 28 pp. 

Perrin, W. F., Sloan, P. A. & Henderson, J. R. 1979. Taxonomic status of the 'southwestern 
stocks of spinner dolphin Stenella longirostris and spotted dolphin S. attenuata' . Report of 
the International Whaling Commission, No. 29, pp. 175-184. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47( 1 ) March 1990 . .^ r- , i?. 

Pucheran, J. 1856. Notices mammalogiques. Revue et Magasin de Zoologie Pure et Applique, (2) 
8: 449-460. 

Rapp, W. 1837. Die Cetaceen zoologisch-anatomisch dargestellt. 182 pp., 8 pis. Cotta, Stuttgart. 

Rice, D. W. 1977. A list of the marine mammals of the world (Third edition). National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration. Technical Report. Report of the National Marine Fisheries 
Service (U.S. Department of Commerce, Seattle). Special Scientific Report-Fisheries, No. 
711. 15pp. 

Schlegel, H. 1 841 . Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete der Zoologie und vergleichenden Anatomic, vol. 

1 (Beitrage zur Characteristik der Cetaceen). 44 pp., 6 pis. Arnz, Leiden. 
Sherborn, C. D. 1891. On the dates of the Parts, Plates and Text of Schreber's 'Saugethiere'. 

Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1891 (4): 587-592. 
Simpson, G. G. 1945. The Principles of Classification and a classification of Mammals. Bulletin of 

the American Museum of Natural History, 85: iv, 1-350. 
Trouessart, E. L. 1898. Catalogus mammalium tarn viventium quam fossilium. Vol. 2, part 5 

(Sirenia, Cetacea, Edentata, Marsupialia, Allotheria, Monotremata), part 2, pp. v, 999- 

1469. Friedlander & Son, Berhn. 
True, F. W. 1889. Contributions to the natural history of the cetaceans, a review of the family 

Delphinidae. United States National Museum Bulletin, 36: 1-191, 47 pis. 
True, F. W. 1894. Notes on some skeletons and skulls of porpoises of the genus Prodelphinus 

collected by Dr. W.L. Abbott in the Indian Ocean. Proceedings of the United States National 

Museum, 17: 33-37. 

True, F. W. 1903. Notes on a porpoise of the genus Prodelphinus from the Hawaiian Islands. U.S. 
Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Government Printing Office, Washington, pp. 41-45, 
pis. 1 and 2. (Reprinted in 1906, Bulletin of the United States Fish Commission, 23 (for 
1903)(3): 809-815). 

Wagner, J. A. 1846. Die Saugethiere in Abbildungen nach der Natur mit Beschreibungen von D. 
Johann Christian Daniel von Schreber, vol. 7 (Ruderfiisser und Fischzitzthiere), vii, 427 pp. 
Erlangen, Leipzig. 



38 

Case 2726 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



Mammuthm Brookes, 1828 (Mammalia, Proboscidea): proposed 
conservation, and Elephas primigenius Blumenbach, 1799 (currently 
Mammuthm primigenius): proposed designation as the type species of 
Mammuthus, and designation of a neotype 

W.E. Garutt 

Zoological Institute, U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences, 1, University 
Embankment, Leningrad 199034, U.S.S.R. 

Anthea Gentry 

Secretariat, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 

cjo The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road. London SW7 5BD, U.K. 

A.M. Lister 

Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street,. 
Cambridge CB2 3EJ, U.K. 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the generic name Mammuthus 
Brookes, 1828, and to designate Elephas primigenius Blumenbach, 1799 as the type 
species, in accordance with existing usage. M. primigenius, the woolly mammoth, is 
known from Pleistocene deposits in Europe, Asia and northern North America. A 
neotype for primigenius is designated. 



1 . Two specific names for the woolly mammoth were proposed in 1 799 : Blumenbach 
(p. 697) proposed the name Elephas primigenius, while G. Cuvier (p. 21) proposed 
E. mammonteus. Blumenbach's work appeared a few months earlier and primigenius 
was the name adopted by subsequent authors. Maglio (1973, p. 60) in his revisionary 
work on the elephantidae suggested that Blumenbach did not validly publish the 
specific name in 1 799 (presumably because primigenius was written with an interrog- 
ation mark) and that the name became available from the 1803 French translation of 
Blumenbach's work (p. 407, where the name was cited without the interrogation mark). 
Kurten & Anderson (1980, p. 353) and earlier authors (Falconer, 1868, p. 158; 
Lydekker, 1886, p. 175; Trouessart, 1897, p. 711; Hay, 1902, p. 713) have also cited 
primigenius with the date 1803. If this date for primigenius were [incorrectly] adopted 
Cuvier's name E. mammonteus would have priority. However, all subsequent authors, 
including Cuvier himself (1 806, p. 264), have accepted Blumenbach's name primigenius 
as the vaUd name for the species. 

2. Blumenbach did not Ust any specimens on which the name was estabhshed and 
which could have been used to designate a lectotype. He stated that bones were often 



Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 , ' -39 

found in Germany and referred to a skeleton found near Burgtonna in 1695 as an 
example of his new species. This specimen was later recognised (Osborn, 1942, pp. 
1118, 1 122; MagUo, 1973, p. 40) to be of the straight-tusked elephant, Elephas antiquus 
Falconer & Cautley, 1845. The Burgtonna skeleton is not to be regarded as a holotype 
since E. primigeniiis was not based on it alone and was composite according to modern 
taxonomy. 

3. The collection in the Zoological Institute of Gottingen University included teeth 
of the woolly mammoth from Blumenbach's personal collection which he might have 
used in establishing the name E. primigenius, and in 1942, acting on advice from W. O. 
Dietrich, Osborn (p. 1 122) selected from among them two teeth as 'lectotypes'. These 
were an incomplete last lower molar from Siberia and a last upper milk premolar from 
Osterode (Harz) in Germany. In 1965, Gromova (p. 38) proposed that one of the teeth, 
that from Siberia, should be the lectotype. 

4. We turn now to the question of the generic name. Blumenbach included the 
generic name Mammut in his work (1799, p. 698), with the specific name ohioticum, but 
this refers to the North American mastodon (Simpson, 1945, pp. 133, 247). The eariiest 
use of the generic name Mammuthus appears to have been that by Brookes in a sales 
catalogue (1828, pp. 73, 74) which has been approved as available for zoological 
nomenclature by the Commission (Opinion 1080, July 1977), followed by Burnett 
(1830, p. 352). Neither author gave a diagnosis or description of the genus. They both 
included two species and used very nearly the same words: 'Genus Mammuthus, species 
borealis, meridionalis. Fossil mammoth'. In both works the name borealis was cited 
without authorship or description but Brookes attributed the second species, meridio- 
nalis, to '(Nesti)' and Elephas meridionalis Nesti, 1825 (p. 21 1) was thereby fixed as the 
type species of Mammuthus by monotypy; its citation makes Mammuthus available 
(Article 12b(5) of the Code). Pohlig(1888,p. dts\gn^.itd Elephas meridionalis 
the type species of his new genus Archidiskodon. (The nominal taxon meridionalis was 
subsequently recognised as composite, one of the three syntype skulls described by 
Nesti (1825, p. 213, skull 'B', cat. no. Igf 1067 in the Florence University Museum) 
being E. antiquus (Weithofer, 1890, p. 137). Deperet & Mayet (1923, pp. 126, 128, figs. 
16a, 16b) selected Nesti's skull 'C (1825, p. 213, pi. 1, figs. 1 and 2, no. Igf 1054) as the 
lectotype meridionalis; see AzzaroH, 1977, p. 156 for details). Archidiskodon is a 
junior objective synonym of Mammuthus Brookes, 1828; it was treated as a distinct 
genus by Osborn (1942, pp. 935, 947) and Azzaroh (1977, p. 151) but was synonymised 
with Mammuthus by Aguirre (1968-69), Maglio (1973, p. 51), and Coppens et al. in 
Maglio & Cooke (1978, p. 357). 

5. In 1935 Hopwood (p. 1 1) adopted the name Mammuthus 'because it appears to be 
the first genus to have Elephas primigenius specified as the type species'. As noted 
above, primigenius had not been mentioned in Mammuthus, but Hopwood (p. 98) 
accepted the synonymy '1799 Elephas primigenius Blumenbach; 1830 Mammuthus 
borealis Burnett' and wrote that 'by so doing I have attempted to make the Rules [Code] 
a useful servant, rather than to allow them to become a blind, unreasoning, master'. 
Hopwood was supported by Colbert (1937, in htt. to Osborn (1942, p. 1367)). Because 
of uncertainty about the availability of the name Mammuthus, Osborn (1924, p. 2; 
1942, pp. 1117, 1 126) adopted Mammonteus Camper, 1788 but, as Simpson (1945, p. 
249) pointed out, 'Mammonteus was reconstructed by Osborn from 'Mammonteum' in 
a Latin work by Camper, but it is perfectly clear that Camper used this only in the 



40 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



vernacular and neither intended nor inadvertently created a real generic name. It is also 
doubtful whether Camper's 'mammonteum' would be available for a mammoth (and 
not mastodon) even if it were a generic name'. Mammonteus was regarded as only 
doubtfully available by Osborn himself (1924, p. 2; 1942, p. 1177), and Mabel Rice 
Percy, editing material for the 1942 volume after Osborn's death, wrote (p. 1363) 'it is 
possible that Professor Osborn would have abandoned it in the final version of the 
present volume and adopted Mammuthus Burnett, 1830'. 

6. After Hopwood, Scott (1937, pp. 67, 274-276, 278) adopted the generic name 
Mammuthus and other workers followed, usually attributing the name to Burnett 
(1830) although Brookes (1828) is the earlier author. The name Mammuthus was 
adopted by the following, among others: Simpson, 1 945, p. 1 34; Carrington, 1 962, pp. 
129-131; MagHo, 1973, p. 50; Coppens et al. in Maglio & Cooke, 1978, pp. 357, 358; 
Kurten & Anderson, 1980, pp. 353-354; Dubrovo, 1982; Stuart, 1982, pp. 44-48; 
Beden, 1985, pp. 28-31; Foronova in Kahlke, 1986, pp. 35, 36, 38; and Tassy & 
Shoshani in Benton, 1988, pp. 292, 293, 295. When the type species is mentioned the 
name Elephas primigenius is that which is cited (Osborn, 1942, p. 1141; Maglio, 1973, 
p. 50; AzzaroH, 1977, p. 151; Coppens et al. in MagHo & Cooke, 1978, p. 357). It is 
desirable to maintain stability in the nomenclature of this important and interesting 
species and the Commission is therefore asked to ratify existing usage, and to interpret 
the specific name primigenius by the skeleton designated as the neotype (see para. 8 
below). In so doing the generic name Archidiskodon Pohlig, 1 888, with the type species 
Elephas meridionalis Nesti, 1825, will also be conserved; the name has had recent 
usage (Stuart, 1982, pp. 44-48; Foronova in Kahlke, 1986, pp. 29-42). The genus 
Mammuthus now includes between seven and ten species, according to different 
authors, including pr/'m/gew/M^ (Magho, 1973; Madden, 1981). 

7. Since the Second World War Blumenbach's original specimens of E. primigenius 
have disappeared and are probably destroyed (Prof Dr H. D. Kahlke, pers. comm.; see 
also Comment on p. 51). Osborn (1942, p. 1123) stated that casts of the two teeth 
designated as iectotypes' by him (see para. 3 above) were in the American Museum of 
Natural History (the lower molar from Siberia, AMNH no. 26980 and fourth upper 
deciduous premolar, no. 26981) and figured the casts (p. 1123, fig. 993). However, 
neither specimen would be useful for study purposes since the molar which was cast was 
incomplete and had an eroded occlusal surface, while the premolar was hardly worn 
and shows little of the occlusal pattern. There are no duplicate casts in the collections of 
the Natural History Museum, London (Alan Gentry, pers. comm.). It is not known 
what became of the specimens oi' Mammuthus borealis' from the Brookesean Museum 
after the sale of the collections in 1828; 13 specimens of parts of tusk, teeth, limb bones 
and fur were listed in the sales catalogue (1828, pp. 73 and 74) but it is Hkely that they 
have all been destroyed. A copy of the prospectus of the Brookesean Museum 
(Brookes, 1827), given by Brookes to J. E. Gray, carries a note by Gray: 'This collection 
was offered to the British Museum Feb. 1827 for lO.OOf subject to the reference of two 
competent persons relation to its value. J. E. Gray'. There is no record of purchase 
of mammoth specimens by the Natural History Museum, London, from Brookes's 
collection (Lydekker, 1886; Woodward, 1904). However, a catalogue of specimens 
in the collections of the Royal College of Surgeons (1844, p. 466) contains the entry 
^Elephas primigenius. 2374. Portion of a tusk. O.C.F. 631. Locahty unrecorded. 
Brookes's collection. Purchased, 1828' and records (p. xv): 'Brookes collection. The 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47( 1) March 1990 



41 



greater part was sold by auction in 1828, on the 14ih of July and ihe iwemy-four 
following days, when the College was a purchaser to the amount of £800. A few 
specimens were also bought at a subsequent sale of the remaining portion of the 
collection in 1830'. Most of the collections of the Royal College of Surgeons were 
destroyed during the Second World War. Subsequently, the remaining natural history 
material was donated to the British Museum (Natural History) (entry no. 6738, for 
17th October 1946, in the palaeontology accessions Hst) but there is no mention of 
mammoth remains. 

8. The problem of a meaningful type specimen for Elephas primigenius has remained 
unresolved until now but it is necessary that the species be typified clearly. During the 
past few decades scientists have many times attempted to clarify the species' intra- 
specific variation; these attempts have been made more difficult, however, as 
E. primigenius and its nominal subspecies have never been unambiguously defined. We 
propose to designate as the neotype the adult male skeleton discovered in 1948 in 
permafrost on the Taimir Peninsula, northern Siberia (Garutt, 1982, 1989). The speci- 
men is exhibited in the museum of the Zoological Institute of the U.S.S.R. Academy of 
Sciences in Leningrad (cat. no. ZIN N 2710). The skeleton was found with remains of 
soft tissues, skin and hair in deposits of the second terrace above the flood plain of the 
Mamontovaya River, a tributary of the Shrenk in the basin of the Nizhnyaya Taimira 
River (Popov, 1950, 1959). Radiocarbon dating of the soft tissues (sample T-297) 
gave ages of 12 000 (Vinogradov, 1954) and 1 1 450 ± 250 yr BP (Heintz & Garutt, 
1965, p. 76). The Taimir specimen, which is in an excellent state of preservation and is 
exceptionally complete, lacking only a few caudal vertebrae and third phalanges, has 
been described by Garutt & Dubinin (1951), Garutt (1954, 1964, 1965, 1972 and 1981), 
Dubrovo (1982), and Baigusheva & Garutt (1987). The last molars are in mid-wear and 
the tusks are well developed. Remains of plants from the same layers as the skeleton 
have been studied by Tikhomirov (1950, 1959), Zakhnskaya (1959) and Zhuze (1959). 
A description of the recovery of the specimen and a plate showing the mounted 
skeleton in the Zoological Institute in Leningrad are included in Augusta & Burian 
(1963, pp. 24-26, 34). 

9. Both the stratigraphic position and the absolute age show that the Taimir 
mammoth existed towards the very end of the Late Pleistocene, during the last part of 
the Sartanian glaciation. The skeleton is of the late, advanced form of M. primigenius 
which inhabited Eurasia from the Last Interglacial to the end of the Last Cold Stage. 
This form is that which occurs most commonly as fossil material and is therefore 
considered by most specialists as the typical one (Garutt, 1964, and others). 

10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the 
nominal genus Mammuthus Brookes, 1 828, and to designate Elephas primigenius 
Blumenbach, 1799 as the type species; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Mammuthus 
Brookes, 1828 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1) above 
Elephas primigenius Blumenbach, 1799; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name primigenius 
Blumenbach, 1799, as published in the binomen Elephas primigenius (specific 
name of the type species of Mammuthus Brookes, 1828), and as defined by the 
neotype designated in para. 8 above. 



42 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



References 

Aguirre, E. 1968-69. Revision sistematica de los Elephantidae por su morfologia y formometria 

dentaria. Parts 1-3. Estudios Geologicos, 24(3-4): 109-167; 25(1-2): 123-177, 317-367. 
Augusta, J. & Burian, Z. 1963. A Book of Mammoths. 94 pp. Hamlyn, London. (Translated from 

the 1962 Czechoslovak Ed.). 
Azzaroli, A. 1977. Evolutionary patterns of Villafranchian elephants in central Italy. Atti delta 

Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Memorie. Classe di Scienze fisiche, matematiche e naturali, 

(8)14(2.4): 149-168. 

Baigusheva, V. S. & Garutt, W. E. 1987. A skeleton of the steppe elephant Archidiskodon 

trogontherii (Pohlig, 1885) from the north-eastern Asov region. Trudy Zoologicheskogo 

Instituta Akademii Nauk SSSR, 168: 21-37. [In Russian.] 
Beden, M. 1985. Les Proboscidiens des grands gisements a hominides Plio-Pleistocenes 

d'Afrique orientale. Pp. 2 1-44 L 'environnement des hominides au Plio- Pleistocene. 468 pp. 

Fondation Singer-Polignac, Masson, Paris. 
Blumenbach, J. F. 1799. Handbuch der Naturgeschichte, 6th Ed. xvi, 708 pp. Dietrich, Gottingen. 
Blumenbach, J. F. 1803. Manuel d'Histoire Naturelle, Traduit de I'Allemand, de J. Fr. 

Blumenbach , par Soulange Artoud, vol. 2. iii, 472 pp. Collignon, Metz. 
Brookes, J. 1827. The Brookesean Museum. The Museum of Joshua Brookes, FRS, FLS, 

Anatomical and Zoological Preparations. 15 pp. Gold & Walton, London. 
Brookes, J. 1828. A catalogue of the anatomical & zoological museum of Joshua Brookes, Esq., 

F.R.S.. F.L.S. etc. Part 1. 76 pp. R. Taylor, London. 
Burnett, G. T. 1830. Illustrations of the Quadrupeda, or Quadrupeds, being the arrangement of 

the true four-footed beasts indicated in outline. Quarterly Journal of Science, Literature and 

Arts, 1829 (2, October-December): 336-353. 
Carrington, R. 1962. Elephants. 285 pp. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth. (First published by 

Chatto & Windus, 1958.) 
Coppens, Y., MagUo, V. J., Madden, C. T. & Beden, M. 1978. Proboscidea. Pp. 336-367 in 

Maglio, V.J. & Cooke, H.B.S. (Eds.), Evolution of African Mammals. 641 pp. Harvard 

University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 
Cuvier, G. 1799. Memoire sur les especes d'elephans vivantes et fossiles. Memoires de I'lnstitut 

National des Sciences et Arts. Sciences Mathematiques et Physiques, 2: 1-22. 
Cuvier, G. 1806. Suite du memoire sur les elephans vivans et fossiles. Annales du Museum 

d'Histoire naturelle, 8: 249-269. 
Deperet, C. & Mayet, L. 1923. Monographic des Elephants Pliocenes d'Europe et de TAfrique. 

Part 2, pp. 89-224 in Les Elephants Pliocenes. Annales de I'Universite de Lyon, nouvelle serie, 

(1)43: 1-224. 

Dubrovo, I. A. 1982. Morphology of the skeleton of the Yuribei mammoth. Pp. 53-99 in Sokolov, 
V. E. (Ed.), Yuribeiskii Mamont. 156 pp. Nauka, Moskva. [In Russian.] 

Falconer, H. 1868. Palaeontological Notes and Memoirs, vol. 2 (Mastodon, elephant, rhinoceros, 
ossiferous caves, primeval Man and his contemporaries). 675 pp. Hardwicke, London. 

Flower, W. H. & Garson, J. G. 1884. Catalogue of the specimens illustrating the osteology and 
dentition of vertebrated animals recent and extinct, contained in the museum of the Royal 
College of Surgeons of England, part 2. Class Mammalia, other than Man. 779 pp. Royal 
College of Surgeons, London. 

Foronova, I. V. 1986. Elephants of the genus Archidiskodon from the late Pliocene and Pleisto- 
cene of the Kuznetsk Basin (southeastern west Siberia). Pp. 29-42 in Kahlke, H. D. (Ed.), 
Neue Forschungsergebnisse zur Palaontologie des Tertiars und Quartars im europaisch- 
asiatischen Raume. Quartdrpaldontologie. Abhandlungen und Berichte des Instituts fur 
Quartdrpaldontologie Weimar, 6: 1-243. 

Garutt, W. E. 1 954. The southern elephant Archidiskodon meridionalis Nesti from the Pliocene of 
northern coast of the Asov Sea. Trudy Komissii po Izucheniyu Chetvertichnogo Perioda. 
Akademii Nauk SSSR, 10(2): 1-78. [In Russian.] 

Garutt, W. E. 1964. Das Mammut Mammuthus primigenius Blumenbach. 140 pp. Cosmos 
Verlag, Stuttgart. 

Garutt, W. E. 1965. Fossil elephants of Siberia. Trudy Nauchno-Issledovatel'skogo Instituta 
Geologii Arktiki, 143: 106-130. [In Russian.] 



■■■ 'I' ' 

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 ' 



Garutt, W. E. 1972. A skeleton of the Chosarian mammoth Mammuthus cf. chosaricus Dubrovo 
from Middle Pleistocene deposits of the Or'ya River (basin of the Kama River). Pp. 35-55 in 
Yakhimovich, V. L. (Ed.), Voprosy Stratigrafii i Korrelyatsii Pliotsenovykh i Pleistotseno- 
vykh Otlozhenii Severnoi i Yuzhnoi Chastei PreduraVya, vol. 2. 125 pp. UFA. [In Russian.] 

Garutt, W. E. 1 98 1 . Versuch der graphischen Rekonstruktion des Lebensbildes der Elefanten der 
Entwicklungslinie Archidiskodon-Mammuthus . Quartdrpalaontologie, 4: 19-25. 

Garutt, W. E. 1982. Species Mammuthus primigenius (Blumenbach). Abstracts, 11th INQUA 
(International Union for Quaternary Research) Congress, Moscow, 1: 103. 

Garutt, W. E. 1989. On the necessity to designate a neotype for the woolly mammoth 
Mammuthus primigenius (Blumenbach, 1799). Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR, 307(5): 
1232-1234. [In Russian.] 

Garutt, W. E. & Dubinin, V. B. 195 1 . On the Taimir mammoth skeleton. Zoologicheskii Zhurnal, 
30(1): 17-23. [In Russian.] 

Gromova, V. 1. 1965. Kratkii obzor chetvertichnykh mlekopitayushchiich Evropy. 144 pp. Moskva. 
[In Russian.] 

Hay, O. P. 1902. Bibliography and catalogue of the fossil Vertebrata of North America. Bulletin 

of the U.S. Geological Survey, no. 179. 868 pp. 
Heintz, A. E. & Garutt, W. E. 1965. Determination of the absolute age of the fossil remains of 

mammoth and woolly rhinoceros from the permafrost in Siberia by the help of radiocarbon 

(C14). Norsk Geologisk Tidsskrift, 45(1): 73-79. 
Hopwood, A. T. 1935. Fossil Proboscidea from China. Palaeontologia Sinica, (C)9(3): 1-108. 
Kurten, B. & Anderson, E. 1980. Pleistocene mammals of North America. 442 pp. Columbia 

University Press, New York. 
Lyddeker, R. 1886. Catalogue of the fossil Mammalia in the British Museum, part 4 (Order 

Ungulata, suborder Proboscidea). xxiv, 233 pp., 32 text figs. British Museum (Natural 

History), London. 

Madden, C. T. 1981. Mammoths of North America. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University 

of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado. 
Maglio, V. J. 1973. Origin and evolution of the Elephantidae. Transactions of the American 

Philosophical Society, 6^0): 1-149. 
Nesti, P. 1825. Lettere sopra alcune ossa fossili del Valdarno non per anco descritte. Sulla nuova 

specie di elefante fossile del Valdarno alFillustrissimo sig. dott. Prof. Ottaviano Targioni 

Tozzetti. Lettera prima. Nuovo Giornale Lettera, 11(24): 195-216. 
Osborn, H. F. 1924. Parelephas in relation to phyla and genera of the family Elephantidae. 

American Museum Novitates, No. 152, 7 pp. 
Osborn, H. F. 1942. Proboscidea, a monograph of the discovery, evolution, migration and extinc- 
tion of the mastodonts and elephants of the world, vol. 2 (Stegodontoidea, Elephantoidea). 

xiii, 805-1675 pp. American Museum of Natural History, New York. 
Pohlig, H. 1 888. Dentition und Kranologie des Elephas antiquus Falc. mit Beitragen iiber Elephas 

primigenius Blum, und Elephas meridionalis Nesti. Nova Acta Academiae Caesareae 

Leopoldino-Carolinae Germanicae Naturae Curiosorum, 53(1): 1-279. 
Popov, A. I. 1950. The Taimir mammoth. Voprosy Geografii, 23: 296-305. [In Russian.] 
Popov, A. I. 1959. The Taimir mammoth and the problem of preservation of remains of 

mammoth fauna in Quaternary deposits of Siberia. Pp. 259-275 in Markov, K. K. & Popov, 

A. I. (Eds.), Lednikovyi Period na Territorii Evropeiskoi Chasti SSSR i Sibiri. 351 pp. 

Moskovskovskii Gos. Universitet, Moskva. [In Russian.] 
Scott, W. B. 1937. A history of land mammals in the western hemisphere. 2nd Ed. xiv, 786 pp. 

Macmillan, New York. 

Simpson, G. G. 1945. The principles of classification and a classification of mammals. Bulletin of 

the American Museum of Natural History, 85: 1-350. 
Stuart, A. J. 1982. Pleistocene vertebrates in the British Isles. 212 pp. Longman, London. 
Tassy, P. & Shoshani, J. 1988. The Tethytheria: elephants and their relatives. Pp. 283-315 in 

Benton, M. J. (Ed.), The phylogeny and classification of the tetrapods, vol. 2 (Mammals). 329 

pp. Systematics Association (Special volume no. 35B), Oxford. 
Tikhomirov, B. A. 1950. On characterization of vegetation cover of the mammoth epoch in the 

Taimir. 5ora«/c/!esA'/7Z/;wTOfl/, 5: 482-497. [In Russian.] 



44 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



Tikhomirov, B. A. 1959. Mammutepokens livsbetingelser. Pp. 296-305 in: Naturens Verden, 
Marts. 

Trouessart, E. L. 1898. Catalogus Mammalium lam viventium quam fossilium. Nova Editio 
(Prima Completa), vol. 2, part 4 (Tillodontia et Ungulata), pp. 699-711 (Proboscidea). 
Friedlander, Berlin. 

Vinogradov, A. P. 1954. Geochemistry of isotopes. Vestnik Akademii nauk SSSR, 5: 26-43. [In 
Russian.] 

Weithofer, K. A. 1890. Die fossilen Proboscidier des Arnothales in Toskana. Beitrdge zur 
Paldontologie Osterreich-Ungarns und des Orients, 8(1 .3): 107-240. 

Woodward, A. S. 1904. The Department of Geology. Pp. 195-340 in: The History of the collec- 
tions contained in the Natural History Departments of the British Museum. 442 pp. British 
Museum, London. 

Zaklinskaya, E. D. 1959. Sporo-pollen spectra of Quaternary deposits in the area of finding of 
the Taimir mammoth. Pp. 276-300 in Markov, K. K. & Popov, A. I. (Eds.), Lednikovyi 
Period na Territorii Evropeiskoi Chasti SSSR i Sibiri. 351 pp. Moskovskovskii Gos. 
Universitet, Moskva. [In Russian.] 

Zhuze, A. P. 1959. Diatom algae in Quaternary deposits in the region of finding of the Taimir 
mammoth. Pp. 301-308 in Markov, K. K. & Popov, A. I. (Eds.), Lednikovyi Period na 
Territorii Evropeiskoi Chasti SSSR i Sibiri. 351 pp. Moskovskovskii Gos. Universitet, 
Moskva. [In Russian.] 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



45 



Note on Borelis de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) and the neotype of its type species 

(Case2225/6: see BZN 45: 11^117, 217-219) . ■ ■ . ^ , , 

P.K.Tubbs : 

Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The 
Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. 

In a comment on this case (BZN 45: 217-219) Dr F. T. Banner pointed out that a 
neotype of Nautilus melo Fichtel & Moll, 1798 had been validly designated by Smout 
(1963, pp. 265-266). This neotype is a specimen corresponding to N. melo "var. P" of 
Fichtel & Moll, which de Montfort ( 1 808) named as Borelis melonoides, the only species 
he included in Borelis. This neotype defines Borelis and B. melo, the valid synonym of 
the type species, and is in accord with established usage (see Loeblich & Tappan, 1988, 
p. 362). Drs H. J. Hansen and F. Rogl, the authors of the case, have accepted this and 
have stated that A^. melo "var. a" Fichtel & Moll (i.e. Clausulus indicator de Montfort, 
1808) and Alveolina haueri d'Orbigny, 1846 should be considered conspecific with 
Borelis melo. This case therefore requires no action and is closed. 



Comments on the proposed fixation of type species for Larnaudia and Ranguna Bott, 
1966 (Crustacea, Decapoda) 

(Case 2624; see BZN 46: 101-103) ^ -. ' . - ^^^^x - • 
(1) Peter K. L.Ng 

Department of Zoology, National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge, Singapore 0511 

Tiirkay & Naiyanetr have demonstrated that the type species designations for 
Ranguna and Larnaudia by Bott (1966) were based on incorrectly identified material. 
Their application to fix the type species for these two genera in a group whose 
taxonomy is particularly 'volatile' is welcomed. There is, however, no strong reason to 
recommend that the nominal type species be changed for either genus. 

I fully agree with the retention of Thelphusa larnaudii A. Milne Edwards, 1869 as the 
type species of Larnaudia Bott, 1966. Larnaudia was originally established as a sub- 
genus of Potamiscus Alcock, 1909, but was later raised to a full genus (Bott, 1970) with 
two species, the type and L. browneana (Kemp, 1918). One more species from Thailand, 
Larnaudia chaiyaphumi Naiyanetr, 1982, was later added. Tiirkay & Naiyanetr (1987) 
redefined the genus after showing that Bott's type species had been based on misidenti- 
fied material, and transferred Tiwaripotamon beausekomae Bott, 1970 to Larnaudia. 
They noted that L. browneana was closely related to Ranguna brousmichei (Rathbun, 
1904), and transferred L. browneana to Ranguna. Other than these publications and 
several by Naiyanetr pertaining to the identification, ecology and general biology of 
Thai crabs, there has not been wide usage of Larnaudia. 

The problem with Ranguna Bott, 1966 is more complex because of the larger number 
of species that have been assigned to it. Bott (1970) established Ranguna with Potamon 
( Potamon) rangoonensis Rathbun, 1904 as type species, although he did not examine 
the type specimens. He recognised two subgenera, Ranguna and Demanietta Bott, 1966, 
both of which were distinguished by the form of their male first pleopods. In the 



46 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



nominate subgenus, Bott (1970) recognised 17 species and subspecies. He noted that 
three other taxa could also possibly be included in Ranguna ( Ranguna). More species 
from Thailand have since been described by Naiyanetr. Ng (1988), however, trans- 
ferred two of the Malayan species to a redefined Stoliczia Bott, 1966. I have also 
pointed out (Ng, 1985, 1987, 1988) that the character used by Bott (1966, 1970) to 
characterise the genus (presence of a dorsal fold on the terminal segment of the male 
first pleopod) is not always reliable. My present studies also indicate that the genus 
Ranguna as defined by Bott (1970) is probably heterogeneous, and that several of the 
species should be classified in other genera. The name Ranguna has only been used by a 
restricted circle of carcinologists, and, other than some local studies on crabs and 
Paragonimus in Thailand, the name has not been used widely. 

Another point that must be considered is that if the type species for Ranguna is 
changed, it might lead to unnecessary confusion, especially if future studies show that 
Ranguna is not found in the vicinity of Rangoon or even Burma (the present 
Myanmar). In establishing Ranguna, Bott (1966) clearly wanted the name to match his 
chosen type species. Additional confusion might also arise as there will then be a species 
called Potamiscus rangoonensis (Rathbun, 1904) as well as a genus Ranguna, which by 
the application of Tiirkay & Naiyanetr would specifically exclude that species. 

I would thus prefer that the type species of Ranguna remain as Potamon rangoonense. 
As Tiirkay & Naiyanetr (1987) have already noted after their re-examination of the 
type specimen of Potamon rangoonense, this would make Ranguna Bott, 1966 a junior 
subjective synonym of Potamiscus Alcock, 1909. There are no serious problems with 
this. The appHcants' choice of Thelphusa longipes A. Milne Edwards, 1 869 as a replace- 
ment type species is based mainly on the form of that species' male first pleopod, which 
fits Bott's diagnosis (Bott & Tiirkay, 1977). Other than this character, the other features 
of T. longipes agree with those of Potamiscus quite well. There is thus the possibility 
that a future revision will require the transfer of T. longipes to Potamiscus. To designate 
T. longipes as the type species in place of Potamon rangoonense might thus be a futile 
exercise. 

Additional references 

Ng, P. K. L. 1985. Freshwater decapod crustaceans from Pulau Tioman, West Malaysia. 

Zoologische Mededelingen, 59(14): 149-162. 
Ng, P. K. L. 1 987. A revision of the Malayan freshwater crabs of the genus Johora Bott, 1 966 stat. 

nov. (Decapoda: Brachyura: Potamidae). Malayan Nature Journal, 41: 13-44. 
Ng, P. K. L. 1988. The Freshwater Crabs of Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore, viii, 156 pp. 

National University of Singapore, Shinglee Press, Singapore. 

(2) L. B.Holthuis 

Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 951 7, 2300 R A Leiden, The Netherlands 

Larnaudia Bott, 1966 

I agree with the applicants that this is a case of a genus based on a misidentified type 
species. Notwithstanding the fact that Bott ( 1 970, pp. 1 76, 302, pi. 50, fig. 46) positively 
declared that he had examined, measured and figured the lectotype of the species, he 
actually did not have access to it. The solution proposed by Tiirkay & Naiyanetr, 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



-47 



namely to accept the nominal species Thelphusa lamaudii A. Milne Edwards, 1869 as 
the type of Lanmudia, is altogether sensible and it is the simplest way out of the mess. I 
gladly support their application on this point. 

Ranguna BolU 1966 

Ranguna Bott, as shown by Tiirkay & Naiyanetr, is likewise based on a misidentified 
type specimen. Bott (1966, p. 481; 1970, pp. 163-164) made clear that he had not seen 
the type material of Potamon rangoonense Rathbun, 1904, the species that he desig- 
nated as the type of the genus. Now Tiirkay & Naiyanetr, after examination of the 
holotype of Rathbun's species, find that it is not a Ranguna in Bott's sense, but a species 
of Potamiscus. Ranguna thus falls as a junior synonym of Potamiscus, unless the 
Commission under its plenary powers changes its type species. Ranguna (sensu Bott) is 
not a well known genus and is not important in applied science, commerce or popular 
science, so the loss of the name will not cause undesirable confusion. Furthermore, the 
status of the many species assigned to Ranguna by Bott is uncertain. Recently, Ng 
(1988), in a handbook on Malaysian freshwater crabs, removed two species placed in 
Ranguna by Bott to the genus Stoliczia Bott, 1966. The area from which Bott reported 
Ranguna (Burma, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia) is very poorly known as far as the 
freshwater fauna is concerned; only recently Tiirkay & Naiyanetr undertook a system- 
atic survey of the freshwater crabs of Thailand, a job, judging by the many new species 
still turning up, that is far from finished. Recent researches by Ng on the freshwater 
crabs of the Malay Peninsula and the Greater Sunda Islands also show that the last 
word on the taxonomy of the group has not been spoken, and that Bott's classification, 
although his book is very useful, certainly does not provide a definitive solution. This is 
not surprising at all in the hght of the fact that Bott's masterly treatise was based on the 
rather meagre material that at that time was available in most museums of the world. 

The proposal to make Thelphusa longipes A. Milne Edwards, 1869 (from Pulau 
Condore in the South China Sea) the type species of Ranguna carries with it the danger 
that the genus Ranguna will not be found in the area of Rangoon, while also the almost 
tautonymously named species P. rangoonense is not included in it. In my opinion it is 
much more sensible to leave the genus Ranguna with Potamon rangoonense as the type 
species, and let it lapse (for the time being?) as a subjective synonym of Potamiscus. The 
proposal of a new and uncompromised generic name for Thelphusa longipes and related 
species seems the most logical way out. 

I would most strongly advise treating Ranguna in a similar way to that proposed for 
Larnaudia: let the nominal species selected by Bott be the type species for the genus. 

Comments on the proposed designation of Lecanium coffeae Walker, 1852 as the type 
species of Saissetia Deplanche, 1859 (Insecta, Homoptera) 

(Case 2677; see BZN 46: 114-118) ' ' , , ' • ' ; 

(1) Giovanni De Lotto 

Via E. Fermi 13, 89048 Siderno (R.C.), Italy (formerly Plant Protection Research 
Institute, Pretoria, South Africa) 

After carefully reading the application made by Dr Y. Ben-Dov on the status of the 
genus Saissetia Deplanche, 1859 and the confusion made by later authors on the 



48 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



identity of its type species, I fully agree with his views and conclusions. Therefore I 
endorse his application to designate Lecanium coffeae Walker, 1 852 as the type species 

of Saissetia. 

(2) Chris Hodgson 

Department of Biochemistry and Biological Sciences, Wye College, University of 
London, Wye, Ashford, Kent TN25 5 AH, U.K. 

In this application, Dr Y. Ben-Dov proposes that Lecanium coffeae Walker be 
designated the type species for the genus Saissetia Deplanche, and asks that the name 
Saissetia coffeae Deplanche be suppressed. 

I would like to support his application. This genus is of world-wide economic 
importance and so it is imperative that the status of these two species names should be 
stabilised. I consider that his proposal does this with the least disturbance to modern 
usage and to the current understanding of the genus Saissetia. 

The evidence seems extremely strong that the Saissetia coffeae of Deplanche was a 
mealybug. As there is no way of knowing which mealybug Deplanche was studying in 
1859, there is no species to which the name Saissetia coffeae Deplanche can be applied. 
It is therefore my belief that Saissetia coffeae Deplanche is best suppressed, and that the 
stability within scale insect taxonomy is best served by making Lecanium coffeae 
Walker the type species of Saissetia. 

Comment on the proposed precedence of Culicoides puncticollis (Becker, 1903) over 
C. algecirensis (Strobl, 1900) (Insecta, Diptera) 

(Case 2716; see BZN 46: 179-180) 

R.W. Crosskey 

The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. 

This is a clear-cut case where a familiar name should be given precedence over a 
senior subjective synonym. It is advisable for the Commission to act now before the 
senior synonym acquires further use. I support Dr Boorman's application. 

Comments on the proposed conservation of Callionymus pusillus Delaroche, 1809 
(Osteichthyes, Perciformes) 

(Case 2688; see BZN 46: 255-258) 

(1) Alwyne Wheeler 

Epping Forest Conservation Centre, High Beach, Loughton, Essex IGIO 4AF, U.K. 

1 . There can be no objection to the conservation of the name Callionymus pusillus 
Delaroche, 1809 as requested by Ronald Fricke, as this is a name which has received 
frequent use by recent authors (see BZN 46: 256, para. 5 for details). 

2. However, it is quite specious to claim that this name is threatened by Callionymus 
dracunculus Linnaeus, 1758, and applying to the Commission for the suppression of 
that name is unnecessary. Fricke's request is based on the composite nature of the 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47( 1 ) March 1990 



49 



taxon Callionymus dracunculus, which was founded by Linnaeus on earlier descriptions 
by Gronovius (1754) and Artedi (1738). Artedi's posthumous work comprised five 
parts of which the Genera Piscium and Synonymia Nominum Piscium were compi- 
lations from the earlier literature. In both of these he cited the work of Rondelet ( 1 554), 
and the references derived from that work in Gesner (1620) and Willughby (1686), as 
'Dracunculus'. Fricke is convinced that Rondelet's description and figure were based 
on a specimen of the species later described as Callionymus pusillus Delaroche, 1809. 
No specimens of Rondelet's exist today. However, the first reference cited by Linnaeus 
(and thus his primary source) was Gronovius (1754). This description was long and 
detailed and a specimen which can be related to his description exists in the Natural 
History Museum, London (Wheeler, 1958). (It should be noted here that in his appli- 
cation Fricke does not mention that Gronovius gave a detailed description of the 
specimen, and infers that this description was in some way indebted to earlier authors. 
Gesner and Willughby were indeed cited but only in the sense of synonyms). Much of 
Gronovius's material originated from the North Sea and there is no doubt that his 
description refers to a specimen of C. dracunculus which can be referred to Callionymus 
lyra Linnaeus, 1758. 

3. Recent authors who have made a critical choice of the taxonomic options have 
treated C. dracunculus as a junior subjective synonym of C. lyra. This synonymy was 
discussed by Giinther (1861), who cited earlier workers as far back as Gmelin (1789). 
Neill (1811, p. 531) appears to have been the first author to adopt the name lyra in 
preference to dracunculus, so acting as first reviser (Article 24 of the Code). 

4. Most recent authors have used the name C. pusillus for the species described 
originally by Rondelet (1554) and named by Delaroche (1809). 

5. In view of this it seems quite unnecessary to ask for a ruHng which in effect 
suggests that the name C. dracunculus was based in a significant manner on Rondelet's 
(1554) description which was sketchy but illustrated, rather than on the first cited 
reference in Linnaeus (1758) to Gronovius (1754) for which a 'type' specimen exists 
(Wheeler, 1958). The primary source for the basis of C. dracunculus was Gronovius 
(1754), the secondary source was Artedi (1738) who referred to Rondelet. Because the 
widespread opinion amongst ichthyologists in the 19th and 20th centuries is that 
C. dracunculus is a junior subjective synonym of C. lyra it is unnecessary and undesir- 
able to make a case for treating it for the first time as a senior synonym of C. pusillus. 

6. While this case may seem relatively trivial it has wider consequences because work 
on Linnaean fishes (Fernholm & Wheeler, 1983; Wheeler, 1985, and unpublished) 
shows that there are many composite species when all sources are considered. If the 
present case is admitted as deserving of a ruling then there is a potential for numerous 
similar applications from zoologists determined to unearth hitherto ignored (but 
known) partial synonyms. This case, like other potential cases, does nothing to stabiHse 
zoological nomenclature. 

References 

Fernholm, B. & Wheeler, A. 1983. Linnaean fish specimens in the Swedish Museum of Natural 
History, Stockholm. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 78: 199-286. 

Gmelin, J. F. 1789. Caroli a Linne Systema Naturae. Ed. 13, vol. 1, part 3 (Amphibia & Pisces): 
1033-1516. 



50 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



Neill, P. 1811 . A list of fishes found in the Frith of Forth, and rivers and lakes near Edinburgh, 
with remarks. Memoirs. Wernerian Natural History Society, 1: 526-555. 

Wheeler, A. 1985. The Linnaean Fish collection in the Linnean Society of London. Zoological 
Journal of the Linnean Society, 84: 1-76. 



(2) Ronald Fricke 

Staatliches Museum fiir Naturkunde, Division of Ichthyology , Schloss Rosenstein, 
D-7000 Stuttgart 1, Fed. Rep. Germany 

1. In his comment above, Alwyne Wheeler doubts that the name Callionymus 
pusillus Delaroche, 1809 is threatened by the older name Callionymus dracunculus 
Linnaeus, 1758. Wheeler supposes that the name dracunculus is composite, being 
based in part on old descriptions in works of Rondeletius (1554), Gesner (1620) and 
Willughby (1686), and in part on a description of Gronovius (1754) which was cited 
first by Linnaeus (1758). 

2. Gronovius ( 1 754) provided a description of a specimen of the species later named 
Callionymus dracunculus by Linnaeus (1758). Wheeler (1958) studied a later manu- 
script and unlabelled specimens assumed to originate in part from Gronovius, in part 
from a later collector and author. In his comment. Wheeler writes that 'much of 
Gronovius's material originated from the North Sea and there is no doubt that his 
description refers to a specimen of C. dracunculus which can be referred to Callionymus 
lyra Linnaeus, 1758'. 

3. On the contrary, I have doubts about Gronovius's description which is so vague 
that no definite species can be identified, nor can we be sure about the collecting 
locality. The fact that 'most of Gronovius's material originated from the North Sea' is 
not enough to ensure that this material originated from there; also, there are three 
species living in the North Sea area (Fricke, 1986). The specimens accompanying the 
manuscript of Gronovius (1766-1777), identified by Wheeler (1958) as 'Callionymus 
dracunculus', were not labelled and were mounted on paper. Moreover, the original 
description of Gronovius does not indicate an identity with the specimens of Wheeler 
(1958). In fact, it is not even certain whether the specimens referred to by Wheeler 
(1958) are all Gronovius's material or that of a later Dutch ichthyologist who is known 
to have made changes in the manuscript. Nor, even if Gronovius's material, do we 
know if it originated from before 1754 or from a later date. 

4. As indicated above, the nature of Gronovius's description and material is 
uncertain (there is no illustration), there is no 'type' specimen of Gronovius's (as 
erroneously claimed by Wheeler in his comment), nor is there any definite specimen 
attributable to him. On the other hand, we have a definite specific identity in the 
description and illustration of Rondeletius (1554), and subsequent authors, who 
described a species now known as Callionymus pusillus Delaroche, 1809. We can there- 
fore be sure that C. dracunculus Linnaeus, 1758 is to be identified with C. pusillus and 
not with C. lyra Linnaeus, 1 758 . In my opinion, Giinther (1861) and other authors were 
wrong to treat the name C. dracunculus as a synonym for the females and immature 
males of C. lyra. It is therefore not only justified but necessary to ask for a ruling on the 
names dracunculus and pusillus, stabilising the current usage of the specific names of 
European species of Callionymus. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



51 



5. I do not foresee a danger of numerous applications to the Commission concerning 
composite species (cf. Wheeler's comment above). C. dracunculus cannot be considered 
a composite species since only its identity with C. pusillus can be demonstrated. 



Comments on the proposed designation of a neotype for Elephas primigenius (currently 
Mammuthus pHmigenius', Mammalia, Proboscidea) 

(Case 2726; see BZN 47: 38-44). . .^ ^ , , 

(1) H. D. Kahlke - ' 

Institutfiir Quartdrpaldontologie, Weimar, Deutsche Dem. Rep. , 

I visited the Institut fiir Geologic und Palaontologie in Gottingen late in 1986 and 
can confirm that the specimens designated by Osborn in 1942 as the lectotype and 
paralectotype of Mammuthus primigemus are no longer available for study and are 
regarded as having been destroyed during the last war. I support the proposal, which 
Dr Garutt first suggested at the 1982 INQUA Congress in Moscow, to designate the 
adult male skeleton from Taimir as the neotype. 

(2) Andrei V. Sher 

Severtsov Institute of Evolutionary Animal Morphology and Ecology, U.S.S.R. 
Academy of Sciences, Moscow, U.S. S.R. ■ 

The absence of a type specimen for such an important species as the woolly 
mammoth is a serious problem for palaeontologists. At present students from differ- 
ent countries are trying to clarify some disputed points in mammoth taxonomy and 
phylogeny. This is impossible without definitions, and it is necessary to know whether 
the European or the Siberian remains are to be regarded as typical for the species. 

I agree with Dr Garutt that a Siberian type is preferable. It is known that specimens 
from Siberia were present in Blumenbach's collection. As Vera Gromova correctly 
noted, from the types mentioned by Dietrich and Osborn the last molar from Siberia 
was more suitable for identification of the species than was the deciduous premolar 
from Germany. Both these specimens are now lost and the designation of a neotype is 
necessary. The Taimir mammoth skeleton completely fulfils the conditions for neotype 
designation set out in the Code and I support the application. 

(3) Alan Gentry 

Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London 
SW7 5BD, U.K. r „ . . 

Late Pleistocene occurrences of Mammuthus primigenius are likely to be much 
studied. Designating a Siberian specimen as the neotype would be helpful and I support 
the application. 



52 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



(4) A. P. Currant 

Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London 
SW75BD, U.K. 

Garutt, Gentry & Lister have proposed an excellent solution to the nomenclatural 
problems laid out in this paper. The woolly mammoth is a very widely known and 
studied species with a considerable popular following. Stabilisation of its binomen, 
Mammuthus primigenius, is highly desirable and the proposed designation of the 
Taimir mammoth as the neotype is in full accord with the modern concept of this 
species. I support the application. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47( 1 ) March 1 990 



53 



OPINION 1567 -v^^^ ■ - '-^ --^^^^ .^a. . ^ 

Nonion de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida): Nautilus faba Fichtel & 
Moll, 1798 designated as the type species 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the 
nominal genus Nonion de Montfort, 1 808 are hereby set aside and Nautilus faba Fichtel 
& Moll, 1 798 is designated as type species. 

(2) The name Nonion de Montfort, 1 808 (gender: masculine), type species by desig- 
nation under the plenary powers in (1) above. Nautilus faba Fichtel & Moll, 1798, is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name faba Fichtel & Moll, 1798, as published in the binomen Nautilus faba 
(specific name of the type species of Nonion de Montfort, 1808), is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2225/1 

An application for the designation of Nautilus faba Fichtel & Moll, 1798 as the type 
species of Nonion de Montfort, 1808 was received from Drs H.J. Hansen {University of 
Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark) & F. Rogl (Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, 
Wien, Austria) on 24 November 1978. The case was delayed until the publication of 
Rogl & Hansen's (1984) revision of Fichtel & Moll's 1798 Testacea Microscopica, and 
after further correspondence was published in BZN45: 104-105 (June 1988). Notice of 
the case was sent to appropriate journals. The proposed designation of Nautilus faba as 
type species of Nonion has been supported by Loeblich & Tappan (1988, p. 617), who 
wrote This action would maintain the genus and higher taxa based on it as these have 
generally been understood since 1808'. The case was also supported by Dr F.T. Banner 
{The Natural History Museum, London). 

The treatise by Loeblich & Tappan refers to, and is consistent with, not only this but 
also five other apphcations by Drs Hansen & Rogl (see Opinions 1568-1572; Cases 
2225/2 to 2225/5, 2225/7). All these cases resulted from the investigation by Rogl & 
Hansen (1984) of the Fichtel and Moll collection. 

Another related case (2225/6; see BZN 45: 116-117, 217-219) is discussed on p. 45. 

References 

Loeblich, A.R. Jr. & Tappan, H. 1988. Foraminiferal Genera and their Classification. 
2 vols. 1 182 pp., 847 pis. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. 

Rogl, F. & Hansen, H.J. 1984. Foraminifera described by Fichtel & Moll in 1798. A 

revision of Testacea Microscopica. Neue Denkschriften des Naturhistorischen Museums 
in Wien, vol. 3. 143 pp. Berger, Wien. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 45: 105. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1989 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 28: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 



54 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, 
Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Wilhnk 
Negative votes — none. 



Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 

faba, Nautilus, Fichtel & Moll, 1798, Testacea microscopica aliaque minuta ex generibus 

Argonauta et Nautilus ad naturam picta et descripta, p. 103. 
Nonion de Montfort, 1 808, Conchy liologie systematique et classification methodique des coquilles. 

Coquilles univalves, cloisonnees, vol. 1, p. 210. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47( 1 ) March 1990 



55 



OPINION 1568 -r. . ^-Vk.^:. - 

^fl/izaH'fl/fl Asano, 1944 (Foraminiferida): conserved V 

Ruling ' 1 " . 

(1) Under the plenary powers the following names are hereby suppressed for the 
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: 

(a) F/on7M5deMontfort, 1808; 

(b) Nonionina d'Orhigny, 1826. 

(2) The name Hanzawaia Asano, 1944 (gender: feminine), type species by original 
designation Hanzawaia nipponica Asano, 1944, is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name nipponica Asano, 1944, as published in the binomen Hanzawaia 
nipponica (specific name of the type species of Hanzawaia Asano, 1944), is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) F/or//M5 de Montfort, 1808, as suppressed in (l)(a) above; . ' . 

(b) A^o«/o«/«fld'Orbigny, 1826, as suppressed in (l)(b) above. " , / 

History of Case 2225/2 

An application for the conservation of Hanzawaia Asano, 1944 was received 
from Drs H.J. Hansen {University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark) & F. Rogl 
(Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Wien, Austria) on 24 November 1978. The case was 
delayed until the publication of Rogl & Hansen's (1984) revision of Fichtel & Moll's 
1798 Testacea Microscopica and after further correspondence published in BZN 45: 
106-108 (June 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

As mentioned in BZN 45: 106, para. 2, the nominal type species of Florilus is 
F. stellatus de Montfort, 1808. In a letter supporting the apphcation, Dr F.T. Banner 
{The Natural History Museum, London) drew attention to the words of Parker & Jones 
(1860; reference below): 'Denysde Montfort ... selected from the Monograph of Fichtel 
and Moll several of their so-called Nautili ... he produced modified figures of these, and 
classified the whole according to his conchological system. ... His generic names are, for 
the most part, useless; since the several species, varieties and figured individuals of a 
genus have received a new binomial appellation at his hand'. Of F. stellatus, Parker 
& Jones (p. 5) wrote: 'A bad drawing after Fichtel & Moll's figures of Nonionina 
asterizans\ Dr Banner agreed with Parker & Jones (1860) (and with the application) 
that F. stellatus was merely a new and unnecessary name for Nautilus asterizans Fichtel 
& Moll, a view also shared by Loeblich & Tappan (1988, p. 720) in their recent treatise. 

Voloshinova (1958; cf. para. 4 of the application) resurrected the name Florilus, 
applying it to a group of species similar to Nonion, a genus only very distantly related 
(at suborder level) to Nautilus asterizans. This wrong usage was temporarily followed 
by some authors, including Loeblich & Tappan (1964); Dr Banner said that his own 
designation (Banner & Culver, 1978; cf. para. 3 of the application) of a nonionid as a 
neotype for F. stellatus should be rejected as invaHd, since the specimen was of Atlantic 
origin (whereas F. stellatus was Mediterranean) and, more importantly, the types of 



56 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



Nautilus asterizans still exist. The treatment of Nonionina as a synonym of Nonion by 
various authors (para. 5 on p. 106) was also in error; the nonionid species which were 
wrongly treated as Florilus or Nonionina are referable to Pseudononion (para. 8 on 
p. 107). 

Dr Banner said that para. 8 of the application would be clarified by reading 
'Continued recognition of Nautilus asterizans (the type species of Nonionina) as the 
senior synonym of Florilus stellatus de Montfort, the type species of Florilus, makes 
Nonionina and Florilus senior subjective synonyms of Hanzawaia, with consequent 
disruption....' 

Of Hanzawaia and Pseudononion (cf. paras. 7 and 8 of the application) Dr Banner 
wrote: 'I have not had time or opportunity to formulate numerically a case for the usage 
of Hanzawaia and Pseudononion, but I can assure you that Hanzawaia, in particular, 
has been very extensively (and correctly) used since its proposal by Asano in 1944. 
Hanzawaia has been recorded from Oligocene to Recent marine sediments and it is 
cosmopohtan, being known from low and mid latitudes, trans-world. Pseudononion 
Asano, 1936, has been recorded less frequently but it is also known to have a cosmo- 
politan occurrence in marine sediments from Danian age to Holocene. Both 
Hanzawaia and Pseudononion are accepted by Loeblich & Tappan (1988); there can be 
no doubt that their loss would cause a very great deal of unnecessary confusion. I 
repeat, this application by Hansen and Rogl should be supported'. 

The letter by Dr Banner was abstracted, as above, on the voting paper. 

Reference 

Parker, V.K. & Jones, T.R. 1860. On the nomenclature of the foraminifera. Annals 
and Magazine of Natural History, (3)8(35): 1-1 1 . 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 45: 107. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1989 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, 
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, MineUi, 
Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Ueno, 
Willink 

Negative votes — 2: Lehtinen and Thompson. 

Dupuis abstained . Thompson considered that insufficient evidence had been provided 
to decide whether use of the plenary powers was justified. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

Florilus de Montfort, 1 808, Conchy liologie systetnatique et classification methodique des coquilles. 

Coqutlles univalves, cloisonnees, vol. 1, p. 134. 
Hanzawaia Asano, 1944, Journal of the Geological Society of Japan, 51(606): 97. 
nipponica, Hanzawaia, Asano, 1944, Journal of the Geological Society of Japan, 51(606): 98. 
Nonionina d'Orbigny, 1826, Annates des Sciences Naturelles, (1)7: 293. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



57 



OPINION 1569 ^ 
Ca/cflri«a d'Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): conserved ^ 

Ruling / V 

(1) Under the plenary powers the name Tinoponis de Montfort, 1808 is hereby 
suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle 
ofHomonymy. ' 

(2) The name Calcarina d'Orbigny, 1826 (gender: feminine), type species Nautilus 
spengleri Gmelin, 1791 by subsequent designation by Parker & Jones (1859), is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name spengleri Gmelin, 1 79 1 , as published in the binomen Nautilus spengleri 
(specific name of the type species of Calcarina d'Orbigny, 1826), is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The name Tinoporus de Montfort, 1808, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby 
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invahd Generic Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2225/3 

An appHcation for the conservation of Calcarina d'Orbigny, 1826 was received 
from Drs H.J. Hansen {University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark) & F. Rogl 
{Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Wien. Austria) on 24 November 1978. The case was 
delayed until the publication of Rogl & Hansen's (1984) revision of Fichtel & Moll's 
' 1798 Testacea Microscopica and after further correspondence published in BZN 45: 
109-1 1 1 (June 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

This application had the support of Dr F.T. Banner {The Natural History Museum, 
London). 

With reference to BZN 45: 1 10, para. 5, Tinoporus baculatus was based on material 
before de Montfort and on that to which he referred in his references (see para. 4). The 
specimen of Nautilus spengleri figured by Fichtel & Moll on their pi. 15, figs, i-k, and 
mentioned by de Montfort, is thus a syntype of T. baculatus. The statement by Rogl & 
Hansen (1984, p. 60) that this specimen is the 'holotype' is incorrect, but makes it 
(under Article 74b) the lectotype. By this selection T. baculatus de Montfort, 1808 
becomes a junior subjective synonym of A'^. spengleri GmeHn, 1791, and Tinoporus de 
Montfort, 1808 is thereby made a senior subjective synonym of Calcarina d'Orbigny, 
1826. The ruling suppresses Tinoporus in order to conserve Calcarina. 

The words 'specific' and 'baculatus'' should be deleted from para. 5, penultimate line. 
There is no need for the suppression of the name baculatus de Montfort, 1 808, as this is 
only a junior subjective synonym of spengleri Gmelin, 1791 . Proposals (l)(b) and (5) in 
para. 6 on p. 1 10 were therefore withdrawn. ... 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 45: 110, amended as noted above. At the close of the 
voting period on 1 December 1989 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, CorUss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 



58 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Scliuster, 
Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink 
Negative votes — 1 : Thompson. 

Thompson considered that insufficient evidence had been provided to decide 
whether use of the plenary powers was justified. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
Calcarina d'Orbigny, 1826, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, (1)7: 276. 
spengleri. Nautilus, Gmelin, 1791, Systema naturae Linnei, Ed. 13, vol. 1(6), p. 3371. 
Tinoporus de Montfort, 1808, Conchyliologie systematique et classification methodique des 
coquilles. Coquilles univalves, cloisonnees, vol. 1, p. 147. 




Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



59 



OPINION 1570 

Dendritina d'Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): conserved . . ^ ^ . 
Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the name Peloriis de Montfort, 1808 is hereby 
suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle 
ofHomonymy. ; • /. : ^ ^ ' .\ 

(2) The name Dendritina d'Orbigny, 1826 (gender: feminine), type species 
Dendritina arbuscula d'Orbigny, 1826 by subsequent designation by Cushman (1927), 
is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name arbuscula d'Orbigny, 1826, as published in the binomen Dendritina 
arbuscula (specific name of the type species of Dendritina d'Orbigny, 1826), is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The name Pelorus de Montfort, 1 808, as suppressed in ( 1 ) above, is hereby placed 
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2225/4 

An application for the conservation Dendritina d'Orbigny, 1826 was received 
from Drs H.J. Hansen {University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark) & F. Rogl 
(Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Wien, Austria) on 24 November 1978. The case was 
delayed until the publication of Rogl & Hansen's (1984) revision of Fichtel & Moll's 
1798 Testacea Microscopica, and after further correspondence was published in BZN 
45: 112-113 (June 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. The 
application had the support of Dr F.T. Banner (T/ze Natural History Museum, London). 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 45: 1 12. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1989 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, CorHss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, 
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — 2: Mroczkowski and Thompson. 

Thompson considered that insufficient evidence had been provided to decide 
whether use of the plenary powers was justified. Mroczkowski would have favoured 
giving Dendritina precedence over Pelorus, but did not support suppression of the latter 
name because the synonymy is subjective. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

arbuscula, Dendritina, d'Orbigny, 1826, Annates des Sciences Naturelles, (1)7: 285. 
Dendritina d'Orbigny, 1826, Annates des Sciences Naturelles, (1)7: 285. 

Pelorus de Montfort, 1 808, Conchyliologie systematique et classification methodique des coquilles. 
Coquilles univalves, cloisonnees, vol. 1, p. 22. 



60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47( 1 ) M arch 1 990 

OPINION 1571 



Planularia Defrance, 1826 (Foraminiferida): conserved 
Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the following names are hereby suppressed: 

(a) Linthuris de Montfort, 1 808, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not 
for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 

(b) Planularia Nilsson, 1826, for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and 
the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name Planularia Defrance, 1826 (gender: feminine), type species by 
monotypy Peneroplis auris Defrance, 1824, is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name auris Defrance, 1824, as published in the binomen Peneroplis auris 
(specific name of the type species of Planularia Defrance, 1 826 ), is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
InvaHd Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Linthuris de Montfort, 1808, as suppressed in (l)(a) above; 

(b) Planularia Nilsson, 1826, as suppressed in (l)(b) above. 

History of Case 2225/5 

An appHcation for the conservation of Planularia Defrance, 1826 was received 
from Drs H.J. Hansen {University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark) & F. Rogl 
{Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Wien, Austria) on 24 November 1978. The case was 
delayed until the publication of Rogl & Hansen's (1984) revision of Fichtel & Moll's 
1798 Testacea Microscopica, and after further correspondence was published in BZN 
45: 114-115 (June 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. The 
application had the support of Dr F.T. Banner {The Natural History Museum, 
London). 

The lectotype of Nautilus cassis was designated by Rogl & Hansen (1984, p. 62; cf. 
para. 2 of the appHcation). Planularia Defrance was published in September 1826, 
and over 100 species have been referred to it. The exact date of Planularia Nilsson, 1 826 
is unknown; under Article 21c it would be taken as [31 December 1826], and its 
suppression was proposed as a precaution in case it should be found to be senior to 
Planularia Defrance. Contrary to para. 4 of the application, P. elliptica Nilsson, 1826 
was designated type species of the Nilsson genus by Loeblich & Tappan (1964, p. 
C522); Planularia Nilsson has not been used as vahd, and LoebHch & Tappan (1964; 
1988, p. 409) treat it as an invalid (because a homonym) senior synonym of Palmula 
Lea, 1833. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1 989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 45: 1 15. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1989 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 61 

Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski (in part), Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, 
Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink 
Negative votes — 2: Lehtinen and Thompson. ■ • 

Thompson considered that insufficient evidence had been provided to decide 
whether use of the plenary powers was justified. Mroczkowski voted for proposals 
(l)(b), (2), (3) and (4)(b); he would have favoured giving Planularia Defrance pre- 
cedence over Linthuris, but did not support suppression of the latter name because 
the synonymy is subjective. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

amis, Peneroplis, Defrance, 1824, Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles, vol. 32, p. 178. 
Linthuris de Montfort, 1808, Conchy liologie systematique et classification methodique des 

coquilles. Coquilles univalves, cloisonnees, vol. 1, p. 254. 
Planularia Defrance, 1826, Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles, vol. 41, p. 244. 
Planularia Nilsson, 1826, Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapakademiens Handlingar, 1825(2): 342. 



62 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



OPINION 1572 

Nautilus repandus Fichtel & Moll, 1798 (currently Eponides repandus; 
Foraminiferida): neotype replaced by rediscovered holotype 

Ruling 

( 1 ) Under the plenary powers the neotype designation by LoebHch & Tappan ( 1 962) 
for Nautilus repandus Fichtel & Moll, 1798 is hereby set aside. 

(2) The name Eponides de Montfort, 1808 (gender: masculine), type species by 
original designation Nautilus repandus Fichtel & Moll, 1798, is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name repandus Fichtel & Moll, 1798, as published in the binomen Nautilus 
repandus and as defined by the holotype (Inv. no. MI-470, Naturhistorisches Museum, 
Vienna) (specific name of the type species of Eponides de Montfort, 1808), is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2225/7 

An application for the setting aside of the neotype for Nautilus repandus Fichtel & 
Moll, 1798 was received from Drs H.J. Hansen (Geological Institute, University of 
Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark) & F. Rogl (Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, 
Wien, Austria) on 24 November 1978. The case was delayed until the publication of 
Rogl & Hansen's (1984) revision of Fichtel & Moll's 1 798 Testacea Microscopica and 
after correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 118-119 (June 1988). Notice of 
the case was sent to appropriate journals. The application was supported by Dr F.T. 
Banner (The Natural History Museum, London) and by Loeblich & Tappan (1988, 
p. 549). The holotype is redescribed on pp. 31-32 of Rogl & Hansen (1984). 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals pubhshed in BZN 45: 118-119. At the close of the voting period on 1 
December 1989 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 28: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, 
Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in 
the present Opinion: 

Eponides de Montfort, 1808, Conchyliologie systematique et classification methodique des 

coquilles. Coquilles univalves, cloisonnees, vol. 1, p. 127. 
repandus. Nautilus, Fichtel & Moll, 1798, Testacea microscopica aliaque minuta ex generibus 

Argonauta et Nautilus ad naturam picta et descripta, p. 35. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



63 



OPINION 1573 

Madvepora Umax Esper, 1797 (currently Herpotitha Umax) and Fungia 
talpina Lamarck, 1801 (currently Polyphyllia talpina; both Cnidaria, 
Anthozoa): specific names conserved 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) the specific name Umax Houttuyn, 1 772, as pubhshed in the binomen Madrepora 
Umax, and all other uses of that name prior to the publication of Madrepora 
Umax Esper, 1797, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle 
of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; 

(b) the following specific names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the 
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: 

(1) talpa Houttuyn, 1 772, as published in the binomen Madrepora talpa; 

(ii) triUnguis Boddaert, 1768, as published in the binomen Madrepora triUnguis. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) Umax Esper, 1 797, as published in the binomen Madrepora Umax; 

(b) talpina Lamarck, 1 801 , as published in the binomen Fungia talpina. 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
-Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) Umax Houttuyn, 1772, as published in the binomen Madrepora Umax and as 
suppressed in (l)(a) above; 

(b) talpa Houttuyn, 1772, as published in the binomen Madrepora talpa and as 
suppressed in (l )(b)(i) above; 

(c) triUnguis Boddaert, 1768, as published in the binomen Madrepora triUnguis and 
as suppressed in ( 1 )(b)(ii) above. 

History of Case 2609 

An application for the conservation of the specific names of Madrepora Umax Esper, 
1797 and Fungia talpina Lamarck, 1801, two mushroom corals, was received from 
Dr Bert Hoeksema {Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, 2300 RA Leiden, The 
Netherlands) on 1 7 June 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 
13-17 (March 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments 
were received. The name Umax on line 3 of BZN 45: 14 should read talpa. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 45: 15. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1989 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de 
Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, 
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — 1 : Lehtinen. 



64 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

Umax, Madrepora, Esper, 1797, Fortsetzmgen der Pflanzenthiere, vol. 1, p. 77. 

Umax, Madrepora, Houttuyn, 1772, Natuurlyke Historie of Uitvoerige Beschryving der Dieren, 

Planten en Mineraalen, vol. 1, part 17, p. 119. 
talpa, Madrepora, Houttuyn, 1772, Natuurlyke Historie of Uitvoerige Beschryving der Dieren, 

Planten en Mineraalen, vol. 1, part 17, p. 116. 
talpina, Fungia, Lamarck, 1801, Systeme des animaux sans vertebres, p. 370. 
trilinguis, Madrepora, Boddaert, 1768, Lyst der Plant-Dieren, p. 613, pi. 14. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



65 



OPINION1574 ^'■■r:: , n.-,.^.. S. .u-r.; - l::,^-; - 

Sphaeroma hookeri Leach, 1814 (currently Lekanesphaera hookeri; 
Crustacea, Isopoda): specific name conserved 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed 
for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of 
Homonymy: 

(a) conglobator Fallas, 1766, as published in the binomen Onwa/^' co/7g/oZ?fl/o/-; 

(b) globator Pallas, 1 772, as published in the binomen Oniscus globator. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) Lekanesphaera Verhoeflf, 1943 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy 
Europosphaera {Lekanesphaera) excavatiim Verhoeflf, 1943 (a junior subjective 
synonym of Sphaeroma mc»«o^// Arcangeli, 1934); 

(b) Sphaeroma Bosc, 1 802 (gender: neuter), type species by subsequent designation 
by Latreille (1810) Oniscus serratus Fabricius, 1787. 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) hookeri Leach, 1814, as published in the binomen Sphaeroma hookeri; 

(b) monodi Arcangeli, 1 934, as published in the binomen Sphaeroma monodi (senior 
subjective synonym of Europosphaera {Lekanesphaera) excavatum Verhoeflf, 
1943, the type species of Lekanesphaera Verhoeflf, 1943); 

(c) serratus Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Oniscus serratus (specific 
name of the type species of Sphaeroma Bosc, 1802). 

(4) The name sphaeromatidae (correction by Dahl, 1916, p. 28 of sphaeromides) 
Latreille, 1825 is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in 
Zoology. 

(5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) conglobator Pallas, 1 766, as published in the binomen Oniscus conglobator and as 
suppressed in ( 1 )(a) above; 

(b) globator Pallas, 1772, as published in the binomen Oniscus globator and as 
suppressed in (l)(b) above. 

(6) The name Europosphaera Verhoeflf, 1943 is hereby placed on the Official Index 
of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (unavailable because published 
without fixation of the type species). 

■ ■ ' 

History of Case 2613 

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Sphaeroma hookeri 
Leach, 1814 was received from Mr B.J.M. Jacobs & Dr L.B. Holthuis {Rijksmuseum 
van Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden, The Netherlands) on 17 June 1987. After correspon- 
dence the case was published in BZN 45: 21-24 (March 1988). Notice of the case was 
sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. It was noted on the voting 
paper that proposal (2)(b) on BZN 45: 23 should have read: monodi Arcangeli, 1934, as 



66 Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 

published in the binomen Sphaeroma monodi (senior subjective synonym of the name of 
the type species of Lekanesphaera Verhoeff, 1943). 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 45: 23. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1989 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de 
Souza, MineUi, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, 
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — 2: Lehtinen and Thompson. 

Thompson considered that the application provided insufficient evidence to decide 
whether use of the plenary powers was justified. 



Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official 
Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
conglobator , Oniscus, Pallas, 1766, Miscellanea zoologica, p. 194. 

Europosphaera Verhoeff, 1943, Zeitschrift fur Morphologie und Okologie der Tiere, 39: 169. 
globator, Oniscus, Pallas, 1 772, Spicilegia zoologica, (9): 70. 

hookeri, Sphaeroma, Leach, 1814, in Brewster, The Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, vol. 7, p. 433. 
Lekanesphaera Verhoeff, 1943, Zeitschrift fiir Morphologie und Okologie der Tiere, 39: 169. 
monodi, Sphaeroma, Arcangeli, 1934, Bollettino dei Musei di Zoologia e di Anatomia Comparata 

delta R. Universita di Torino, 44(3)(48): 149. 
serratus, Oniscus, Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa Insectorum, p. 242. 

Sphaeroma Bosc, 1802, Histoire naturelle des Crustaces, contenant leur description et leurs 
moeurs, 2: 182. 

SPHAEROMATIDAE Latreille, 1825, Families naturelles du regne animal, exposees succinctement et 
dans un ordre analytique, avec Vindication de leurs genres, p. 294. 



i 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47( 1 ) March 1 990 



67 



OPINION 1575 

Coenobita Latreille, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda): conserved 
Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the following names are hereby suppressed for the 
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: 

(a) Carc/«/o77 Jarocki, 1825; . ■ . • ; . 

(b) Ce«oZ)/toBerthold, 1827; ' ''._:y, '-- -'y^-' '-'^^'^ 

(c) Eremita Osheck, 1165; ' . " ■ • 

(d) javanica Osbeck, 1765, as published in the binomen Eremita javanica. 

(2) The name Coenobita Latreille, 1829 (gender: masculine), type species by 
monotypy Pagurus clypeatus Fabricius, 1787, is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name clypeatus Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Pagurus 
clypeatus (specific name of the type species of Coenobita Latreille, 1829), is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The name coenobitidae Dana, 1851 (correction by Ortmann (1892) of 
cenobitidae) (type genus Coenobita Latreille, 1 829) is hereby placed on the Official List 
of Family-Group Names in Zoology. 

(5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Cflrc/77/0/7 Jarocki, 1825, as suppressed in (1 )(a) above; , , 

(b) Cenobites 'Qtxihold, 1827 as suppressed in (l)(b) above; ; ■ 

(c) ^rem/Yfl Osbeck, 1765 as suppressed in (l)(c) above; 

(d) Cenobita H. Milne Edwards, 1 837 (an incorrect subsequent spelling of Coenobita 
Latreille, 1829). 

(6) The name javanica Osbeck, 1765, as published in the binomen Eremita javanica 
and as suppressed in ( 1 )(d) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

(7) The name cenobitidae Dana, 1851 is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (an incorrect original spelling 

of COENOBITIDAE). 

History of Case 2610 

An application for the conservation of Coenobita Latreille, 1829, the name of a 
hermit crab genus, was received from Drs G.J. Morgan ( Western Australian Museum, 
Perth, Australia) & L.B. Holthuis {Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden, The 
Netherlands) on 1 7 June 1 987 and published in BZN 45: 1 8-20 (March 1 988). Notice of 
the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 45: 1 9-20. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1989 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 28: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 



68 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, 
Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink 
Negative votes — none. 



Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official 
Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

Carcinion Jarocki, 1 825, Zoologia czyli zwierzetopismo Ogolne, podlug Ndynowszego Systematu, 
vol. 5, p. 108. 

Cenobita H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Histoire naturelle des Crustaces, vol. 2, p. 238. 
Cenobites Berthold, 1827, Latreille's Natiirliche Familien des Thierrekhs, p. 263. 
CENOBITIDAE Dana, 1851, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 5: 269. 
clypeatus, Pagurus, Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa Insectorum, vol. 1, p. 328. 

Coenobita Latreille, 1829, Les Crustaces, les Arachnides et les Insectes, distribues en families 
naturelles, ouvrage formant les tomes 4 et 5 celui de M. le baron Cuvier sur le regne animal, 
Ed. 2, p. 77. 

COENOBiTiDAE Dana, 1851, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 5: 
269. 

Eremita Osbeck, 1765, Reise nach Ostindien und China, p. 356. 
javanica, Eremita, Osbeck, 1765, Reise nach Ostindien und China, p. 356. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



69 



OPINION 1576 ■ 

Palaemon longirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea, Decapoda): 
specific name conserved 

Ruling : 

(1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) the specific name albescens Pennant, 1812, as published in the binomen Astacus 
albescens, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but 
not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 

(b) the specific name longirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (p. 394), as published in 
the binomen Palaemon longirostris, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of 
both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) longirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (p. 392), as published in the binomen 
Palaemon longirostris; 

(b) serratus Pennant, 1777, as published in the binomen Astacus serratus and as 
defined by the lectotype designated in BZN 45: 121, para. 4, i.e. the specimen 
figured by Pennant (1777, p. 16, fig. 28); 

(c) styliferus H. Milne Edwards, 1840, as published in the binomen Palaemon 
styliferus. 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) albescens Pennant, 1812, as published in the binomen Astacus albescens, and as 
suppressed in (l)(a) above; 

(b) edwardsii\{e\\QX , 1 863, as published in the binomen Palaemon edwardsii (a junior 
objective synonym of longirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (p. 392)); 

(c) longirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (p. 394), as pubhshed in the binomen 
Pfl/aewo« /o«g/ro5/m, and as suppressed in (l)(b) above. 

History of Case 2612 

An application for the conservation of Palaemon longirostris H. Milne Edwards, 
1837 (p. 392) was received from Dr L.B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke 
Historic, Leiden, The Netherlands) on 17 June 1987. After correspondence the case was 
published in BZN 45: 120-124 (June 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate 
journals. No comments were received. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 45: 123. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1989 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, iCabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, 
Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — 1: Thompson. 



70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47( 1 ) March 1 990 

Thompson considered that insufficient evidence had been provided to decide 
whether use of the plenary powers was justified. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
albescens, Astacus, Pennant, 1812, British Zoology, Ed. 5, vol. 4, p. 25. 
edwardsii, Palaemon, Heller, 1863, Die Crustaceen des sUdlichen Europa, p. 265. 
longirostris , Palaemon, H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Histoire Naturelle des Crustaces, vol. 2, p. 392. 
[Official List] 

longirostris, Palaemon, H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Histoire Naturelle des Crustaces, vol. 2, p. 394. 
[Official Index] 

serratus, Astacus, Pennant, 1777, British Zoology, Ed. 4, vol. 4, p. 19. 

styliferus, Palaemon, H. Milne Edwards, 1840, Histoire Naturelle des Crustaces, vol. 3, p. 638. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 ' > 71 

OPINION 1577 - ■ ■ ■ ■-^■;;■v.^;.;^.::/.^ 

Hydrobius Leach, 1815 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Dytiscus fuscipes 
Linnaeus, 1758 conserved as type species, and Berosus Leach, 1817 
(Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved 

Ruling j^-l:'^' '■V, 

(1) Under the plenary powers all fixations of type species for the nominal genus 
Hydrobius Leach, 1815 are hereby set aside, and the designation by Hope (1838) of 
i^j^r/^cM^/w^a/je^ Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species is conserved. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) Hydrobius Leach, 1815 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent desig- 
nation by Hope (1838) Dytiscus fuscipes Linnaeus, 1758, as conserved in (1) 
above; 

(b) Berosus Leach, 1817 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Dytiscus 
luridus Linnaeus, 1761. 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) fuscipes Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Dytiscus fuscipes (specific 
name of the type species of Hydrobius Leach, 1815); 

(b) luridus Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the binomen Dytiscus luridus (specific 
name of the type species of jBero^M^ Leach, 1817). 

History of Case 2607 

An application for the conservation of Dytiscus fuscipes Linnaeus, 1758 as the type 
species of the water beetle genus Hydrobius Leach, 1815, so also conserving Berosus 
Leach, 1817, was received from Dr M. Hansen (Zoologisk Museum, Kobenhavn, 
Denmark) on 1 1 May 1987 and published in BZN 45: 25-26 (March 1988). Notice of 
the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. 

'D. luridus Leach, 1761' on the first line of para. 6 on p. 25 should be amended to read 
'Z). luridus Linnaeus, 1761'. 

It would have been possible to achieve the result sought by Dr Hansen (conservation 
of the usage of Hydrobius and Berosus described in para. 6) by using the plenary powers 
to suppress Hydrobius as of Leach, 1815 for both the Principles of Priority and 
Homonymy and to take the name from Leach, 1817. Dr Hansen did not ask for this; 
Hydrobius is always given the date 1815 (cf. para. 4), and Dr Hansen's proposal to 
accept this date has advantages. However, since Dytiscus fuscipes was not included in 
1815, proposals (1) and (2) on p. 26 were amended on the voting papers to read: 

'(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the 
nominal genus Hydrobius Leach, 1815 and to conserve the designation of Dytiscus 
fuscipes Linnaeus, 1758 by Hope (1838); 

(2) (a) Hydrobius Leach, 1815 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Hope (1838), as conserved in (1) above, Dytiscus fuscipes Linnaeus, 
1758.' 



72 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals pubUshed in BZN 45: 26, as amended above. At the close of the voting period 
on 1 December 1989 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, 
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, 
Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — 2: Savage and Thompson. 

Dupuis and Lehtinen abstained. Savage commented that he would have favoured 
dating Hydrobius horn 1817. Thompson said that there was insufficient evidence in the 
application to decide whether use of the plenary powers was justified. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 

Berosus Leach, 1817, The zoological miscellany, vol. 3, p. 92. 
fuscipes, Dytiscus, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 41 1. 
Hydrobius Leach, 1815, in Brewster, Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, vol. 9, p. 96. 
luridus, Dytiscus, Linnaeus, 1761, Fauna Svecica, Ed. 2, p. 214. 



Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 '73 

OPINION1578 5- 

Vespa triangulum Fabricius, 1775 (currently Philanthus triangulum; 
Insecta, Hymenoptera): specific name conserved 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name ruspatrix Linnaeus, 1767, as pub- 
lished in the binomen Vespa ruspatrix, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the 
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name triangulum Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Vespa 
triangulum, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name ruspatrix Linnaeus, 1 767, as published in the binomen Vespa ruspatrix 
and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. - i . . < r,^. 

History of Case 2608 

An application for the conservation of the specific name of the 'bee-wolf Vespa 
triangulum Fabricius, 1775 was received from Dr W.J. Pulawski {California Academy 
of Sciences, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.) on 2 June 1987. After correspondence 
the case was pubhshed in BZN 45: 34-35 (March 1988). Notice of the case was sent to 
appropriate journals. Comments in support from O. Lomholdt (Zoologisk Museum, 
Kobenhavn, Denmark) and J. Hamon {4 rue de Coteau, Gaillard, France) were pubHshed 
in BZN 46: 45 (March 1989). 

A similar application was received on 12 November 1987 from Dr R.T. Simon 
Thomas {Instituut voor Taxonomische Zoologie, Amsterdam, The Netherlands), as 
noted on BZN 45: 35, who mentioned that (as well as being an apicultural pest) 
Philanthus triangulum is an important laboratory insect in the field of toxinological 
research (see, for example. Pick, T. et al. (1985), Philanthotoxins: a review of the 
diversity of actions on synaptic transmission. Pesticide Science, 16: 488-494). ; : 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 45: 34 35. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1989 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, CorHss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de 
Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, 
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — 1 : Lehtinen. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

ruspatrix, Vespa, Linnaeus, 1767, Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1, part 2, p. 951. 
triangulum, Vespa, Fabricius, 1775, Systema Entomologiae, p. 373. 



74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 

OPINION 1579 



Pycinaster magnificus Spencer, 1913 (Echinodermata, Asteroidea): 
specific name conserved 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name dutemplei d'Orbigny, 1850, as pub- 
hshed in the binomen Pentetagonaster dutemplei, is hereby suppressed for the purposes 
of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name magnificus Spencer, 1913, as pubUshed in the binomen Pycinaster 
magnificus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name dutemplei d'Orbigny, 1850, as published in the binomen Pentetagon- 
aster dutemplei and as suppressed in ( 1 ) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2564 

An appHcation for the conservation of Pycinaster magnificus Spencer, 1913 was 
received from M G. Breton {Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, Le Havre, France) on 18 
March 1986. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 125-126 (June 
1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment in support 
received from C.W. Wright {Beaminster , Dorset, U.K.) was published in BZN 46: 46 
(March 1989) 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 45: 126. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1989 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de 
Souza, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Ueno, 
Willink 

Negative votes — 3: Holthuis, MinelU and Thompson. 
No vote was returned by Savage. 

Holthuis commented that the name magnificus had only had limited use. Thompson 
considered that insufficient evidence had been presented to decide whether use of the 
plenary powers was justified. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

dutemplei, Pentetagonaster, d'Orbigny, 1850, Prodrome de paleontologie stratigraphique 

miverselle des animaux mollusques et rayonnes, vol. 2, p. 274. 
magnificus, Pycinaster, Spencer, 1913, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 

(B)204: 125. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47( 1 ) March 1 990 

OPINION 1580 



75 



Covdylodusl dubius Rhodes, 1953 (currently Distomodus dubius; 
Conodonta); specific name conserved 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name spinosum Harley, 1861, as published 
in the binomen Astacoderma spinosum, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the 
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name dubius Rhodes 1953, as published in the binomen Cordylodus dubius 
(as Cordylodusl dubius), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology. 

(3) The name spinosum Harley, 1861, as published in the binomen Astacoderma 
spinosum and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2308 

An application for the conservation of Cordylodusl dubius Rhodes, 1953 was 
received from Drs L. Jeppsson {Lunds Universitet , Sweden) & R.J. A\dnd%e {University 
of Nottingham, England, U.K.) on 14 June 1979. After correspondence the case was 
published in BZN 45: 127-129 (June 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate 
journals. No comments were received. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals pubhshed in BZN 45: 128. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1989 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 23: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, CorHss, Hahn, Halvorsen, 
Heppell, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, 
Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, WilHnk 

Negative votes — 5: Dupuis, Holthuis, Kabata, Lehtinen and Minelli. 

Holthuis considered that as the nominal species Astacoderma spinosum had a holo- 
type and as this name was almost 100 years older than Cordylodusl dubius there was no 
good reason not to follow priority. However, as pointed out by the authors (BZN 45: 
127, para. 1), the species is quite common and geographically widespread. The paucity 
of references prior to Rhodes (1953) reflects the lack of appreciation until recent times 
of the nature and stratigraphic significance of conodonts. Dupuis would have favoured 
giving dubius precedence over spinosum, since the synonymy is subjective. Kabata did 
not think the case for overturning priority was strong enough. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

dubius. Cordylodusl, Rhodes, 1953, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 
(B)237:'299. 

spinosum, Astacoderma, Harley, 1861, Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 17: 
550. 



76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 

OPINION 1581 



Hydrolycm Miiller & Troschel, 1844 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): 
Hydrocyon scomberoides Cuvier, 1819 confirmed as the type species 

Ruling 

(1) It is hereby confirmed that the nominal species Hydrocyon scomberoides Cuvier, 
1819 (non Valenciennes, 1849 nec Miiller & Troschel, 1844) is the type species of the 
nominal genus Hydrolycus Miiller & Troschel, 1844. 

(2) The name Hydrolycus Miiller & Troschel, 1 844 (gender: masculine), type species 
by monotypy and confirmed in (1) above, Hydrocyon scomberoides Cuvier, 1819, is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name scomberoides Cuvier, 1819, as pubhshed in the binomen Hydrocyon 
scomberoides and as defined by the holotype A. 8659-8 1 .87.2.3 in the Museum National 
d'Histoire naturelle, Paris (specific name of the type species of Hydrolycus Miiller & 
Troschel, 1844), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2556 

An application for the confirmation of Hydrocyon scomberoides Cuvier, 1819 as the 
type species of Hydrolycus Miiller & Troschel, 1844 was received from Drs J. Gery 
(Argentonesse, Saint Cyprien, France) & V. Mahnert (Museum d'Histoire naturelle, 
Geneve, Switzerland) on 10 February 1986. After correspondence the case was pub- 
lished in BZN 45: 38-40 (March 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate 
journals. No comments were received. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 45: 39. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1989 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 28: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, CorUss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, 
Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 

Hydrolycus Miiller & Troschel, 1844, Archiv fUr Naturgeschichte, Berlin, 10(1): 93. 
scomberoides, Hydrocyon, Cuvier, 1819, Memoires du Museum d'Histoire naturelle, Paris, 5: 357. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 • 77 

OPINION 1582 -:hi:^-ur:yy.\ -vr. v:-: ; ' . 

Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): conserved 

Ruling ■ . 

( 1 ) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) the name Amblodon Rafinesque, 1819 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of 
the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 

(b) it is hereby ruled that the correct original spelling of the generic name Ictiorus 
Rafinesque, 1 820 is deemed to be Ictiobus. 

(2) The name Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820 (gender: masculine), type species 
Catostomus bubalus Rafinesque, 1818 by subsequent designation by Agassiz (1854), is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name bubalus Rafinesque, 1818, as published in the binomen Catostomus 
bubalus (specific name of the type species of Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1 820), is hereby placed 
on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Rafinesque, 1819, as suppressed in (l)(a) above; 

(b) Ictiorus Rafinesque, 1820 (ruled in (l)(b) above to be an incorrect original 
spelling of /cr/o^wi Rafinesque, 1820). , _ 

History of Case 2598 

An application for the conservation of Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820 was received from 
Drs R.M. Bailey {University of Michigan, Michigan, U.S.A.) & W.N. Eschmeyer 
{California Academy of Science, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.) on 2 March 1987 
and published in BZN 45: 36-37 (March 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropri- 
ate journals. No comments were received. The following information, which did not 
affect the essence of the application, was noted on the voting paper. 

As stated in para. 1, Rafinesque (1819, p. 421) proposed Amblodon for two 
species, one of which was the 'brown buffalo-fish', his Catostomus bubalus of 1818. 
The next year (cf. para. 2) he transferred the name Amblodon to the unrelated 
'grunting perch', previously (and validly) called Aplodinotus grunniens Rafinesque, 
1819 (p. 418). On p. 24 of the Ichthyologia Ohiensis (and previously in January 1820 
in The Western Review) Rafinesque explained this transfer: 'The name [Amblodon] 
means obtuse teeth ... Only one species is known yet ... The structure of these teeth 
[of Aplodinotus grunniens] is very singular and peculiar ... [They] are common in 
many museums, where they are erroneously called teeth of the Buffalo-fish ... I 
was deceived so far by this mistake ... this error I now correct with pleasure'. Thus 
Amblodon had been mistakenly applied to bubalus, and it was not used again for this 
species. 

The name Ictiorus has been printed only once, in June 1820 in The Western Review 
(see para. 3). As stated in para. 4, the name appeared twice as Ictiobus in the volume 
Ichthyologia Ohiensis later that year, and this spelling has been used ever since. Ictiorus 
was probably a misprint: Jordan & Evermann (1896, p. 163) point out that Ictiobus 
bubalus derives from the Greek for 'Buffalo bull-fish'. 



78 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



Ictiorus is on p. 299 of Rafinesque, C.S. 1 820 (June). Natural History of the Fishes of 
the Ohio River and its Tributary Streams. Fishes of the River Ohio. Western Review 
and Miscellaneous Magazine, Lexington, 2 (5): 299-307. 

Ictiobus, with exactly the same text, is on pp. 55 and 89 of Ichthyologia Ohiensis, 1 820 
(November or December). 90 pp. Hunt, Lexington. 

Proposal (4) on BZN 45: 37 was amended to read 'to place on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names: 

(a) Amblodon Rafinesque, 1819, as suppressed in (l)(a) above; 

(b) Ictiorus Rafinesque, 1820, ruled in (l)(b) above to be an incorrect original 
spelling of Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820'. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals pubUshed in BZN 45: 37, with proposal (4) amended. At the close of the 
voting period on 1 December 1989 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 26: Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, 
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de 
Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, 
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — 1 : Thompson. 

No vote was returned by Bayer. 

Thompson said that the application provided insufficient evidence to decide whether 
use of the plenary powers was justified. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

Amblodon Rafinesque, 1819, Journal de Physique, de Chimie et d'Histoire Naturelle et des Arts, 
Paris, 88: 421. 

bubalus, Catostomus, Rafinesque, 1818, American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review, 3(3): 
355. 

Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820, Ichthyologia Ohiensis, or natural history of the fishes inhabiting the 
river Ohio and its tributary streams in The Western Review and Miscellaneous Magazine, vol. 
2(5), p. 299 [301], June 1820 (here incorrectly spelled Ictiorus); spelled Ictiobus in November 
or December 1820 in Ichthyologia Ohiensis, or natural history of the fishes inhabiting the river 
Ohio and its tributary streams, pp. 55, 89. 

Ictiorus Rafinesque, 1 820, Ichthyologia Ohiensis, or natural history of the fishes inhabiting the river 
Ohio and its tributary streams in The Western Review and Miscellaneous Magazine, vol. 2(5), 
p. 299 [301], June 1820 (here an incorrect original spelling of Ictiobus); spelled Ictiobus in 
November or December 1820 in Ichthyologia Ohiensis, or natural history of the fishes 
inhabiting the river Ohio and its tributary streams, pp. 55, 89. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



79 



OPINION 1583 .7-^;;, ■ - t . , ... i., 

Scorpaenichthys marmoratus (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes): Ayres, 
1854 to be taken as the author of the specific name 

Ruling 

(1) It is hereby ruled that the specific name marmoratus Ayres, 1854, as published in 
the binomen Hemitripteras [sic] marmoratus, has priority over the name marmoratus 

j Girard, 1 854, as published in the binomen Scorpaenichthys marmoratus. 

\ (2) The name Scorpaenichthys Girard, 1854 (gender: masculine), type species by 
monotypy Scorpaenichthys marmoratus Girard, 1854 (a junior subjective synonym of 
Hemitripteras [sic] marmoratus Ayres, 1854), is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name marmoratus Ayres, 1854 (8 September), as published in the binomen 
Hemitripteras [sic] marmoratus (senior subjective synonym of Scorpaenichthys 
marmoratus Girard, 1854 [6 October], the type species of Scorpaenichthys Girard, 
1 854), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2619 

An application concerning the authorship and date of the specific name of the North 
Pacific cabezon Scorpaenichthys marmoratus was received from Drs Robert N. Lea 
{California Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, California, U.S.A.) & William N. 
Eschmeyer {California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.) on 14 
July 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 132-134 (June 
1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. 

The specific name marmoratus for the species was published independently in 1854 
by W.O. Ayres and by C.F. Girard. Ayres' name was pubhshed on 8 September in The 
Pacific, a San Francisco journal (in which the California Academy published its meet- 
ing reports), and again on 22 September in the Proceedings of the California Academy 
of Natural Sciences, 1: 3. Girard's marmoratus appeared in the Proceedings of the 
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 7: 132; the actual date of publication 
is unknown but a copy was received by the American Philosophical Society 
(Philadelphia) by 6 October, and under Article 21g of the Code this is taken as the 
formal date of publication. 

Because Girard published the generic name Scorpaenichthys, with his marmoratus as 
type species of the new genus by monotypy, and because his work may have actually 
I been published before that of Ayres, Drs Lea & Eschmeyer asked that the name 
marmoratus Ayres be suppressed. The application noted (BZN 45: 133, para. 5) 
that both Ayres and Girard have been cited in the literature as author of the name 
marmoratus. In recent years Ayres has been given more often. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals pubhshed in BZN 45: 133. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1989 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 14: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, 
Kabata, Nye, Ride, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno 



80 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



Negative votes — 14: Cogger, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, 
Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Savage, Schuster, 
Willink. 

Thompson commented that he voted for marmoratus being taken from Girard, 
because of the ambiguous date and nature of Ayres' publication. Library research 
might show that Girard's name had in fact been published first, especially since Ayres' 
8 September 1854 report in The Pacific was not 'for permanent scientific record' [cf. 
Article 8a(i) of the Code. This would not apply to the 22 September Proceedings paper, 
and in September 1854 the California Academy directed that its proceedings be pub- 
lished in The Pacific]. Voting against the application. Cogger said that suppression of 
Ayres' name was unwarranted and that attribution of marmoratus to him would not 
cause difficulty. If that had been the case, a better solution would have been to rule that 
Girard's name had priority. 

Since the voting period it has been discovered that in March 1855 Ayres himself 
attributed marmoratus to Girard, but this appears to have been based not on publi- 
cation but on Girard having presented his paper the earlier (see BZN 45: 132, paras. 3 
and 4; Proceedings of the California Academy of Natural Sciences, 1: 12, 32). 

Provisions of the Code (in the present case Articles 21 and 23) may only be set aside 
by the Commission using its plenary powers, necessitating a two-thirds majority vote. 
A simple majority is taken as a preliminary vote only, and a two-thirds majority is 
required in a second vote. In the present case there was no majority in favour of the 
proposals on BZN 45: 1 33, which are therefore rejected; Ayres should thus be taken as 
the valid author of marmoratus. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 

marmoratus, Hemitripteras, Ayres, 1854, The Pacific (San Francisco), 3(44): 174. 
Scorpaenichthys Girard, 1854, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 
7: 131. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 81 

OPINION 1584 '■'-■^n-,:^. n-'rir^;' .V.-' 

Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): Silurus lividus 
Rafinesque, 1820 designated as the type species 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the 
nominal genus Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820 are hereby set aside and Silurus lividus 
Rafinesque, 1820 is designated as type species. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820 (gender: masculine), type species by designation 
under the plenary powers in (1) above Silurus lividus Rafinesque, 1820 (a junior 
subjective synonym of Pimelodus natalis Lesueur, 1819); 

(b) Pylodictis Rafinesque, 1819 (gender: mascuHne), type species by monotypy 
Pylodictis limosus Rafinesque, 1819 (a junior subjective synonym of Silurus 
o/z vara Rafinesque, 1818). 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) natalis Lesueur, 1819, as published in the binomen Pimelodus natalis (senior 
subjective synonym of Silurus lividus Rafinesque, 1820, the type species of 
Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1 820); 

(b) olivaris Rafinesque, 1818, as pubhshed in the binomen Silurus olivaris (senior 
subjective synonym of Pylodictis limosus Rafinesque, 1819, the type species of 
P;^/o^//c?w Rafinesque, 1819). 

History of Case 2631 

An application for the designation of Silurus lividus Rafinesque, 1820 as the type 
species of Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1 820 was received from Drs R.M. Bailey ( University of 
Michigan, Michigan, U.S.A.) & C.R. Robins {University of Miami, Florida, U.S.A.) on 
17 November 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 135-137 
(June 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

The ruling maintains the established use of the name Ameiurus (sometimes, 
incorrectly, Amiurus) for the 'bullheads'. As mentioned on BZN 45: 136, para. 4, 
lines 1 and 2, since 1877 Pimelodus natalis Lesueur, 1819 has been regarded as the 
valid name of the type species, but in the opinion of the applicants (para. 4 also) 
authors were wrong in listing Rafinesque's nominal species Silurus cupreus as a 
junior synonym of P. natalis. Another of Rafinesque's originally included nominal 
species, S. lividus, is now treated as the junior subjective synonym of P. natalis. 
The desirability of conserving the name Ameiurus was first raised with the then 
Secretary of the Commission (F. Hemming) in 1954 by Dr Carl L. Hubbs, but no 
formal application was made. In 1955 Dr W.L Follett noted that Silurus cupreus 
Rafinesque, 1820, previously designated as type species of Ameiurus, is 'at best a 
complex'. Silurus cupreus is now considered a synonym of the type species of Pylo- 
dictis Rafinesque, 1819, and the present ruhng avoids Ameiurus faUing as a junior 
synonym of Pylodictis. 



82 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 



The text of Rafinesque (1820b; the Ichthyologia Ohiensis) was seriaHsed before its 
publication (December 1820) as a book (see Wheeler, BZN 45: 8). Ameiurus (p. 359 in 
the Western Review) dates from July 1820 (see reference below). 

References 

For Pylodictis: Rafinesque, C.S. 1819. Prodrome de 70 nouveaux genres d'animaux 
decouverts dans I'interieur des Etats-Unis d' Amerique, durant I'annee 1818. Journal de 
Physique, de Chimie et d'Histoire Naturelle, et des Arts, 88: 417-429. 

For Ameiurus: Rafinesque, C.S. 1820 (July). Natural History of the Fishes of the 
Ohio River and its Tributary Streams. Fishes of the River Ohio. Western Review and 
Miscellaneous Magazine, Lexington. 2 (6): 355-363. (Also on p. 65 of Ichthyologia 
Ohiensis, 1820 (November or December). 90 pp. Hunt, Lexington). 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals pubhshed in BZN 45: 136-137. At the close of the voting period on 1 
December 1989 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corhss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, 
Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — 1 : Thompson. 

Thompson considered that insufficient evidence had been presented to decide 
whether use of the plenary powers was justified. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 

Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820, Western Review and Miscellaneous Magazine, Lexington, 2 (6): 359. 
natalis, Pimelodus, Lesueur, 1819, Memoires du Museum d'Histoire naturelle, Paris, 5: 154. 
olivaris, Silurus, Rafinesque, 1818, American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review, New York, 
3(5): 355. 

Pylodictis Rafinesque, 1819, Journal de Physique, de Chimie et d'Histoire Naturelle, et des Arts, 
88: 422. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 ' 83 

OPINION 1585 - - 

Ascalabotes gigas Bocage, 1875 (currently Tarentola gigas; Reptilia, 
Squamata): specific name conserved 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name bomeensis Gray, 1845, as published 
in the binomen Tarentola bomeensis, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the 
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name gigas Bocage, 1 875, as published in the binomen Ascalabotes gigas, is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name bomeensis Gray, 1845, as published in the binomen Tarentola 
bomeensis and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2621 

An application for the conservation of Ascalabotes gigas Bocage, 1875, the name 
of a gecko from the Cape Verde Islands, was received from Dr H.H. Schleich (c/o 
Zoologische Staatssammlung, Miinchen, Fed. Rep. Germany) on 30 July 1987. After 
correspondence the case was pubhshed in BZN 45: 41-42 (March 1988). Notice of the 
case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 45: 41. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1989 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Minelh, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, 
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — none. ; 

No vote was returned by Martins de Souza. • • . (. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

bomeensis, Tarentola, Gray, 1845, Catalogue of the specimens of lizards in the collection of the 
British Museum, p. 165. 

gigas, Ascalabotes, Bocage, 1 875, Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes, 5: 108. 



84 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47( 1) March 1 990 



OPINION 1586 

Euryotis brantsii A. Smith, 1834 (currently Parotomys brantsii; 
Mammalia, Rodentia): specific name conserved 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name v/g^//Thunberg, 1 8 1 1 , as published in 
the binomen Arctomys vigil, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of 
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name brantsii A. Smith, 1 834, as published in the binomen Euryotis brantsii, 
is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name v/g// Thunberg, 181 1, as published in the binomen Arctomys vigil and 
as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
InvaUd Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2605 

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Euryotis brantsii A. 
Smith, 1834 was received from Drs L.C. Rookmaaker (Dokter Guepinlaan 23, NH 
Ommeren, The Netherlands) & J. Meester {University of Natal, Durban, R.S.A.) on 27 
April 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 43-44 (March 
1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment from Dr Dieter 
Kock (Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, Frankfurt, Fed. Rep. Germany) was published 
in BZN 45: 223 (September 1988). 

Comments in support from Dr Sarah B. George {Los Angeles County Museum of 
Natural History, California, U.S.A.) and from Mr W.F.H. Ansell {St. Ives, Cornwall, 
U.K.) were noted on BZN 45: 223. 

The paper referred to in para. 2, p. 43 as 'in press' has now been published: 

Rookmaaker, L.C. 1988. The taxonomic importance of CP. Thunberg's revision of 
South African mammals (1811). South African Journal of Science, 84 (3): 159-161. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 45: 43. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1989 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, CorHss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, 
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de 
Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, 
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — 1 : Cogger. 

Cogger commented that he would have voted for brantsii being given precedence 
over vigil, but suppression of the latter was unwarranted because the synonymy was 
uncertain (cf. BZN 45: 223). 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

brantsii, Euryotis, A. Smith, 1834, South African Quarterly Journal, 2: 150. 
vigil, Arctomys, Thunberg, 1811, Memoires de I'Acadenfie Imperiale des Sciences de St. 
Petersbourg, 3: 308. 



Contents — continued 



Rulings of the Commission 

Opinion 1567. Nonion de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida): Nautilus faba Fichtel & 

Moll, 1798 designated as the type species 53 

Opinion 1568. //a«ravt'a/a Asano, 1944 (Foraminiferida): conserved 55 

Opinion 1569. Ca/ran/jfl d'Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): conserved 57 

Opinion 1570. Z)e«<^n//«a d'Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): conserved 59 

Opinion 1571. Planularia Defrance, 1826 (Foraminiferida): conserved 60 

Opinion 1572. Nautilus repandus Fichtel & Moll, 1798 (currently Eponides repandus; 

Foraminiferida): neotype replaced by rediscovered holotype 62 

Opinion 1573. Madrepora Umax Esper, 1797 (currently Herpolitha Umax) and Fungia 

talpina Lamarck, 1801 (currently Polypliyllia talpina; both Cnidaria, Anthozoa): 

specific names conserved 63 

Opinion 1574. Sphaeroma hookeri Leach, 1814 (currently Lekanesphaera hookeri; 

Crustacea, Isopoda): specific name conserved 65 

Opinion 1575. Coe«o^;?fl Latreille, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda): conserved . ... 67 
Opinion 1576. Palaemon longirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea, Decapoda): 

specific name conserved 69 

Opinion 1577. Hydrobius Leach, 1815 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Dytiscus fuscipes 

Linnaeus, 1758 conserved as type species, and Berosus Leach, 1817 (Insecta, 

Coleoptera): conserved 71 

Opinion 1578. Vespa triangulum Fabricius. 1775 (currently Philanthus triangulum; 

Insecta, Hymenoptera): specific name conserved 73 

Opinion 1579. Pycinaster magnificus Spencer, 1913 (Echinodermata, Asteroidea): 

specific name conserved 74 

Opinion 1580. Cordylodusl dubius Rhodes 1953 (currently Distomodus dubius; 

Conodonta): specific name conserved 75 

Opinion 1581. Hydrolycus Muller & Troschel, 1844 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): 

Hydrocyon scomberoides Cuvier, 1819 confirmed as the type species 76 

Opinion 1582. /c//o^«5 Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): conserved . 77 
Opinion 1583. Scorpaenichthys marmoratus (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes): Ayres, 

! 854 to be taken as the author of the specific name 79 

Opinion 1584. ^we/w^wj Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): Silurus lividus 

Rafinesque, 1820 designated as the type species 81 

Opinion 1585. Ascalabotes gigas Bocage, 1875 (currently Tarentola gigas; Reptilia, 

Squamata): specific name conserved 83 

Opinion 1586. Euryotis brantsii A. Smith, 1834 (currently Parotomys brantsii: 

Mammalia, Rodentia): specific name conserved 84 



INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS / 

The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Comimission; other 
authors should comply with the relevant sections. Recent parts of the Bulletin should be 
consulted as examples. 

Title. This should be written in lower case letters and include the names to be conserved. A 
specific name should be cited in the original binomen, with the current name in parentheses. 

Author's name. Full postal address should be given. 

/Ifts/racr. This will be prepared by the Commission's Secretariat. 

Text. Typed in double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs setting out the details 
of the case and leading to a final paragraph of formal proposals. Text references should give dates 
and page numbers in parentheses, e.g. 'Daudin (1800, p. 39) described . . . 

References. These should be given for all authors cited. The title of periodicals should be in full 
and be underlined; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arable figures, separated by a 
colon from page numbers. Book titles should be underlined and followed by the number of 
pages, the publisher and the place of publication. 

Submission of application. Two copies should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, the Inter- 
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce the time that it takes to process the large 
number of applications received if the typescript could be accompanied by a disk with copy in 
ASCII text on IBM PC format 5.25 inch 360KB (preferable) or 1 .2MB, or 3.5 inch 1 .4MB floppy 
disk. Disks will be returned after copying. It would also be helpful if applications were 
accompanied by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references. 



CONTENTS 

Page 

Notices 1 

Election of the Vice-President of tiie International Commission on Zoological 

Nomenclature 2 

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and its publications . 2 

Addresses of members of the Commission 3 

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 4 

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology-Supplement 5 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 5 

Instructions to Authors 5 

Applications 

Plewactis Verrill, 1864 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): proposed designation of Fungia 
paumotensis Stutchbury, 1833 as the type species, with conservation of Lobactis 
Verrill, 1864. B. W. Hoeksema 6 

CYMATiiNAE Iredale, 1913 (1854) (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and cymatiinae Walton in 
Hutchinson, 1940 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposal to remove the homonymy. 
A. Jansson & A. G. Beu 9 

Umax fibratus Martyn, 1 784 et Nerita hebraea Martyn, 1 786 (actuellement Placoslylus 
fibratus et Natica hebraea; Mollusca, Gastropoda): conservation proposee pour les 
noms specifiques; et Placoslylus Beck, 1837: designation proposee de L. fibratus 
comme espece-type. P. Bouchet 12 

Proptera Rafinesque, 1819 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): proposed conservation. M. E. 
Gordon 19 

Mirochernes Beier, 1930 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): proposed confirmation of 

Chelanops dentatus Banks, 1895 as the type species. M. S. Harvey 22 

Holostaspis subbadius var. robustulus Berlese, 1904 (currently Macrocheles robustulus; 
Arachnida, Acarina): proposed conservation as the correct spelling of the specific 
name. R. B. Halliday 24 

Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1 879 (Crustacea, Isopoda): proposed precedence over 
Palaega Woodward, 1 870. J. W. Martin & H. G. Kuck 27 

Carcinochelis Fieber, 1861 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed designation of 
Carcinochelis alutaceus Handlirsch. 1897 as the type species. R. C. Froeschner & 
N. A. Kormilev 30 

Steno attenuatus Gray, 1846 (currently Stenella attenuaia; Mammalia, Cetacea): 

proposed conservation of the specific name. W. F. Perrin 32 

Mammuthus Brookes, 1828 (Mammalia, Proboscidea): proposed conservation, and 
Elephas primigenius Blumenbach, 1799 (currently Mammuthus primigenius): pro- 
posed designation as the type species oi Mammuthus, and designation of a neotype. 
W. E. Garutt, Anthea Gentry & A. M. Lister 38 

Note and Comments 

On Borelis de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) and the neotype of its type species. 

P. K. Tubbs 45 

On the proposed fixation of type species for Larnaudia and Ranguna Bott, 1966 

(Crustacea, Decapoda). P. K. L. Ng; L. B. Holthuis 45 

On the proposed designation of Lecanium cojfeae Walker, 1852 as the type species of 

Sflme?/a Deplanche, 1859 (Insecta, Homoptera). G. De Lotto; C. Hodgson ... 47 
On the proposed precedence of Culicoides puncticollis (Becker, 1903) over 

C. algecirensis (Strobl, 1900) (Insecta, Diptera). R. W. Crosskey 48 

On the proposed conser\'ation of Callionymus pusillus Delaroche, 1 809 (Osteichthyes, 

Perciformes). A. Wheeler; R. Fricke 48 

On the proposed designation of a neotype for Elephas primigenius (currently 

Mammuthus primigenius; Mammalia, Proboscidea). H. D. Kahlke; A. V. Sher; Alan 

Gentry; A. P. Currant 51 

Continued on Inside Back Cover 



Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd.. at the Dorset Press. Dorchester. Dorset 



111 

Volume 47, Part 2, 29 June 1990 pp. 85-172 ISSN 0007-5167 



BRITISH MUSEU 
(NATURAL HISTQ 
-5 JUL1S90 



ZOOLOGY UBRAH 



The 

Bulletin 

of 

Zoological 
Nomenclature 




lICZ^A Cjj^he Official Periodical 
of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 



THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a 
charity (no. 21 1944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 1990 is £65 or 
$125, postage included. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to: 
The Executive Secretary, 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 
c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, 

London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 071-938 9387) 



INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



Ojficers 
President 
Vice-President 
Secretary-General 
Executive Secretary 



Prof Dr O. Kraus {Fed. Rep. Germany) 
Dr H. G. Cogger {Australia) 
Dr I. W. B. Nye {United Kingdom) 
Dr P. K. Tubbs {United Kingdom) 



Members 

Dr F. M. Bayer {U.S.A.; Corallia) 
Prof W. J. Bock {U.S.A.; Ornithology) 
Dr L. R. M. Cocks {U.K.; Brachiopoda) 
Dr H. G. Cogger {Australia; Herpetology) 
Prof J. O. Corliss {U.S.A.; Protista) 
Prof C. Dupuis {France; Heteroptera) 
ProfDrG. Hahn 

{Fed. Rep. Germany; Trilobita) 
Prof Dr O. Halvorsen 

{Norway; Parasitology) 
Mr D. Heppell {U.K.; Mollusca) 
Dr L. B. Holthuis 

{The Netherlands; Crustacea) 
Dr Z. Kabata {Canada; Copepoda) 
ProfDrG. Kraus 

{Fed. Rep. Germany; Arachnology) 
Dr P. T. Lehtinen {Finland; Arachnology) 
Dr E. Macpherson {Spain; Crustacea) 



Dr V. Mahnert 

{Switzerland; Ichthyology) 
Prof U. R. Martins de Souza 

{Brazil; Coleoptera) 
Prof A. Minelli {Italy; Myriapoda) 
Dr M. Mroczkowski {Poland; Coleoptera) 
Dr C. Nielsen {Denmark; Bryozoa) 
Dr I. W. B. Nye {U.K.; Lepidoptera) 
Dr W. D. L. Ride {Australia; Mammalia) 
Prof J. M. Savage {U.S.A.; Herpetology) 
Prof Dr R. Schuster {Austria; Acari) 
Dr Y. I. Starobogatov 

{U.S.S.R.; Mollusca) 
Dr F. C. Thompson (i7. 5.^.; Diptera) 
Dr V. A. Trjapitzin 

{U.S.S.R.; Hymenoptera) 
Dr Shun-Ichi Ueno {Japan; Entomology) 
Prof A. WiUink 

{Argentina; Hymenoptera) 



Secretariat 

Dr P. K. Tubbs {Executive Secretary and Editor) 

Mr J. D. D. Smith, B.Sc, B.A. {Scientific Administrator) 

Miss R. A. Cooper, B.Sc. {Zoologist) 

Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. {Zoologist) 



Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 

Prof H. B. Whittington, F.R.S. {Chairman) 

Dr M. K. Howarth {Secretary and Managing Director) 

® International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1990 



85 



BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



Volume 47, part 2 (pp. 85-172) 29 June 1990 



Notices 

,/ 

(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised to vote on applications 
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their pubUcation, 
but this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Any 
zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to send his 
contribution to the Executive Secretary of the Commission as quickly as possible. 

(b) Invitation to contribute general articles. At present the Bulletin comprises mainly 
applications concerning names of particular animals or groups of animals, resulting 
comments and the Commission's eventual rulings (Opinions). Proposed amendments 
to the Code are also published for discussion. 

Articles or notes of a more general nature are actively welcomed provided that they 
raise nomenclatural issues, although they may well deal with taxonomic matters for 
illustrative purposes. It should be the aim of such contributions to interest an audience 
wider than some small group of specialists. 

(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received 
since going to press for volume 47, part 1 (published on 27 March 1990): 

(1) Pliocercus Cope, 1860 (ReptiHa, Serpentes): proposed conservation, and 
P. elapoides Cope, 1860: proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 
2752). H.M. Smith, K.L. WilHams, V. Wallach & D. Chiszar. 

(2) Cycloceras McCoy, 1844 (MoUusca, Nautiloidea): proposed designation of 
C. laevigatum McCoy, 1844 as the type species, and proposed designation 
of a neotype for C. laevigatum. (Case 2753). K. Histon. 

(3) Scoparipes Signoret, 1879 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed confirmation of 
Cydnus latipes Westwood, 1837 as the type species. (Case 2754). J. A. Lis. 

(4) Eurymela bicincta Erichson, 1842 (currently Eurymeloides bicincta; Insecta, 
Homoptera): proposed conservation and designation of a neotype. (Case 
2755). M.M. Stevens & M.J. Fletcher. 

(5) Proagoderus Lansberge, 1883 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. 
(Case 2756). C. Palestrini. 

(6) Rhinapion Beguin-Billecocq, 1905 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conser- 
vation. (Case 2757). M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga & M. Wanat. 

(7) Buprestis Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed confirmation of 
B. octoguttata Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species. (Case 2758). G.H. Nelson & 
W.F. Barr. 

(8) Goniosoma conspersum Perty, December 1833 (currently Mitobates conspersus; 
Arachnida, Opiliones): proposed precedence over Mitobates triangulus 
Sundevall, April 1833. (Case 2759). A.B. Kury. ^ 



86 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



(9) Rhipidocystis Jaekel, 1900 (Echinodermata, Eocrinoidea): proposed desig- 
nation of R. balticaiaekd, 1900 as the type species. (Case 2760). S.V. Rozhnov. 

(10) Chrysops atlanticus Pechuman, 1949 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed precedence 
over C. ca««/ro«5 Walker, 1848. (Case 2761). J.E. Chainey. 

(11) Griffithides Portlock, 1843 (Trilobita): proposed conservation of G. longiceps 
Portlock, 1843 as the type species. (Case 2762). G. Hahn. 

(12) Coccinella undecimnotata Schneider, 1 792 (currently Hippodamia ( Semiadalia ) 
umdecimnotata; Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific 
name. (Case 2763). R.D. Pope. 

(13) Acrolocha Thomson, 1858 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. (Case 
2764). M.K. Thayer. 

(14) Phyllodoce Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Polychaeta): proposed conservation. 
(Case 2765). F. Pleijel. 

(15) Corns fulmen Reeve, 1843 and C. berghausi Michelotti, 1847 (Mollusca, 
Gastropoda): proposed precedence over C. modestus Sowerby, 1833 and 
C. demissus Philippi, 1836 respectively. (Case 2766). A.J. Kohn. 

(16) Drosophila hydei Sturtevant, 1921 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation of 
the specific name. (Case 2767). C.R. Vilela & G. Bachli. 

(d) Rulings of the Commission. Each Opinion, Declaration or Direction published in 
the Bulletin constitutes an official ruling of the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature, by virtue of the votes recorded, and comes into force on the 
day of publication of the Bulletin. 

Call for nominations for new members of the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature 

The following members of the Commission reach the end of their terms of service at 
the close of the XXIV General Assembly of the International Union of Biological 
Sciences to be held in Amsterdam in September 1991: Dr H. G. Cogger (AustraHa 
Herpetology); Prof Dr O. Kraus (Fed. Rep. Germany, Arachnology); Dr M 
Mroczkowski (Poland, Coleoptera); Dr W. D. L. Ride (Australia, Mammalia). A 
further vacancy arises from the resignation of Dr G. C. Gruchy (Canada, Ichthyology) 

The addresses and specialist fields of the present members of the Commission may be 
found in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 47( 1 ) (March 1 990) . Under Article 36 
of the Commission's Constitution a member whose term of service has terminated is 
not eligible for immediate re-election unless the Council of the Commission has decided 
to the contrary. 

The Commission now invites nominations, by any person or institution, of candi- 
dates for membership. Article 2b of the Constitution prescribes that: 

'The members of the Commission shall be eminent scientists, irrespective of 
nationality, with a distinguished record in any branch of zoology, who are known 
to have an interest in zoological nomenclature'. 
(It should be noted that 'zoology' here includes the appUed biological sciences (medi- 
cine, agriculture, etc.) which use zoological names). 

Nominations made since September 1987 will be reconsidered automatically and 
need not be repeated. Additional nominations, giving the date of birth, nationaUty and 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



87 



qualifications (by the criteria mentioned above) of each candidate should be sent by 
1 June 1991 to: The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, 
U.K. 



Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in 

Zoology — Supplement ; 

The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology was published in 1987. 
This book gives details of all the names and works on which the Commission has ruled 
since it was set up in 1895, up to 1985. There are about 9,900 entries. 

In the three years 1986-1988, 544 names and three works were added to the Official 
Lists and Official Indexes. A supplement has been prepared giving these additional 
entries, together with some amendments to entries in the 1987 volume. This supplement 
was circulated with Vol. 46, Part 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Copies 
can be obtained without charge from either of the following addresses, from which the 
Official Lists and Indexes can be ordered at the price shown (postage included). 
Payment should accompany orders. ; ^ ; ^ , , 

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History 
Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Price £60 or $110 
or 

The American Association for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o NHB Stop 163, National 
Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Price $110 ($100 to 
members of A.A.Z.N.). 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 

The Third Edition (published 1985) supersedes all earlier versions and incorporates 
many changes. 

Copies may be ordered from the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 
c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Price £19 
or $35 (postage included) or from the American Association for Zoological 
Nomenclature, c/o NHB Stop 163, National Museum of Natural History, 
Washington, D.C. 20560 U.S.A. Price $35 ($32 to members of A.A.Z.N.). Payment 
should accompany orders. 



88 Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 

Bully for Bvontosaurus 

A minor victory snatched from the jaws of taxonomic triviality 
by Stephen Jay Gould 

This article by Dr Gould originally appeared in Natural History, February 1990, pp. 16-24, 
published by the American Museum of Natural History, New York. It is reproduced here by 
permission. Offprints can be obtained from the Commission Secretariat. 

Question: What do Catherine the Great, Attila the Hun, and Bozo the Clown have in 
common? Answer: They all have the same middle name. 

Question: What do San Marino, Tannu Tuva, and Monaco have in common? 
Answer: They all realized that they could print pretty pieces of perforated paper, call 
them stamps, and sell them at remarkable prices to philatelists throughout the world 
(did these items ever bear any relationship to postage or utility? Does anyone own a 
canceled stamp from Tannu Tuva?). Some differences, however, must be admitted. 
Although San Marino (a tiny principality within Italy) and Tannu Tuva (a former state 
adjacent to Mongolia but now annexed to the Soviet Union) may rely on stamps for a 
significant fraction of their GNP, Monaco, as we all know, has another considerable 
source of outside income — the casino of Monte Carlo (nurtured by all the hype and 
elegance of the Grimaldis — Prince Rainier, Grace Kelly, and all that). 

So completely do we identify Monaco with Monte Carlo that we can scarcely 
imagine any other activity, particularly something productive, taking place in this little 
land of fantasy and fractured finances. 

Nonetheless, people are born, work, and die in Monaco. And this tiny nation boasts, 
among other amenities, a fine station for oceanographic research. This combination of 
science and hostelry makes Monaco an excellent place for large professional meetings. 
In 1913, Monaco hosted the International Zoological Congress, the largest of all 
meetings within my clan. This 1913 gathering adopted the important Article 79, or 
'plenary powers decision', stating that 'when stability of nomenclature is threatened in 
an individual case, the strict appUcation of the Code may under specified conditions be 
suspended by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature'. 

Now I will not blame any reader for puzzlement over the last paragraph. The topic — 
rules for giving scientific names to organisms — is easy enough to infer. But why should 
we be concerned with such legaUstic arcana? Bear with me. We shall detour around the 
coils of Boa constrictor, meet the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 
head-on, and finally arrive at a hot issue now generating much passion and acrimony at 
the heart of our greatest contemporary fad. You may deny all concern for rules of 
taxonomy, our last domain of active Latin (now that Catholicism has embraced the 
vernacular), but milUons of Americans are now het up about the proper name of 
Brontosaurus, the canonical dinosaur. And you can't grasp the name of the beast 
without engaging the beastly rules of naming. 

Nonprofessionals often bridle at the complex Latin titles used by naturalists as 
official designations for organisms. Latin is a historical legacy from the foundation 
of modern taxonomy in the mid-eighteenth century — a precomputer age when 



BulletinofZoologicalNomenclature47(2) June 1990 - 89 

Romespeak was the only language shared by scientists throughout the world. The 
names may seem cumbersome, now that most of us pass our youthful years before a 
television set, rather than declaiming hic-haec-hoc and amo-amas-amat . But the 
principle is sound. Effective communication demands that organisms have official 
names, uniformly recognized in all countries, while a world of changing concepts and 
increasing knowledge requires that rules of naming foster maximal stability and 
minimal disruption. 

New species are discovered every day; old names must often change as we correct 
past errors and add new information. If every change of concept demanded a redesig- 
nation of all names and a reordering of all categories, natural history would devolve 
into chaos. Our communications would fail as species, the basic units of all our dis- 
course, would have no recognized labels. All past literature would be a tangle of 
changing designations, and we could not read without a concordance longer than the 
twenty volumes of the Oxford English Dictionary. 

The rules for naming animals are codified in the International Code of Zoological 
Nomenclature * as adopted and continually revised by the International Union of 
Biological Sciences (plant people have a different code based on similar principles). The 
latest edition (1985) is bound in bright red and runs to 338 pages. I will not attempt to 
summarize the contents, but only state the primary goal: to promote maximal stability 
as new knowledge demands revision. 

Consider the most prevalent problem demanding a solution in the service of stabiHty: 
when a single species has been given two or more names, how do we decide which to 
vaHdate and which to reject? This common situation can arise for several reasons: two 
scientists, each unaware of the other's work, may name the same animal; or a single 
scientist, mistaking a variable species for two or more separate entities, may give more 
than one name to members of the same species. A simple and commonsensical 
approach might attempt to resolve all such disputes with a principle of priority — let 
the oldest name prevail. In practice, such 'obvious' solutions rarely work. The history 
of taxonomy since Linnaeus has featured three sequential approaches to this classical 
problem. 

1. Appropriateness. Modern nomenclature dates from the publication, in 1758, of 
the tenth edition of Linnaeus's Systema Naturae. In principle, Linnaeus endorsed the 
rule of priority. In practice, he and most of his immediate successors commonly 
changed names for reasons, often idiosyncratic, of supposed 'appropriateness'. If the 
literal Latin of an original name ceased to be an accurate descriptor, new names were 
often given. (For example, a species originally named floridensis to denote a restricted 
geographic domain might be renamed americanus if it later spread throughout the 
country.) 

Some unscrupulous taxonomists used appropriateness as a thinly veiled tactic to 
place their own stamp upon species by raiding rather than by scientific effort. A 
profession supposedly dedicated to expanding knowledge about things began to 
founder into a quagmire of arguments about names. In the light of such human foibles, 
appropriateness could not work as a primary criterion for taxonomic names. 

*Copies of the Code can be obtained from I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Price £19 or US$35, or from The American 
Association for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o NHB Stop 163, National Museum of Natural 
History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Price US$35 (US$32 to members of A.A.Z.N.). 



90 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



2. Priority. The near anarchy of appropriateness provoked a chorus of demands for 
reform and codification. The British Association for the Advancement of Science 
finally appointed a committee to formulate a set of official rules for nomenclature. The 
Strickland Committee, obedient to the age-old principle that periods of permissiveness 
lead to stretches of law 'n order (before the cycle swings round again), reported in 1842 
with a 'strict construction' that must have brought joy to all Robert Borks of the day. 
Priority in publication shall be absolutely and uncompromisingly enforced. No ifs, 
ands, buts, quibbles, or exceptions. 

This decision may have ended the anarchy of capricious change, but it introduced 
another impediment, perhaps even worse, based on the exaltation of incompetence. 
When new species are introduced by respected scientists, in widely read publications 
with clear descriptions and good illustrations, people take notice and the names pass 
into general use. But when Ignatz Doofus publishes a new name with a crummy 
drawing and a few lines of telegraphic and muddled description in the Proceedings of 
the Philomathematical Society of Pfennighalbpfennig (circulation 533), it passes into 
well-deserved oblivion. Unfortunately, under the Strickland Code of strict priority, 
Herr Doofus's name, if published first, becomes the official moniker of the species — so 
long as Doofus didn't break any rule in writing his report. The competence and useful- 
ness of his work has no bearing on the decision. The resultant situation is perversely 
curious. What other field defines its major activity by the work of the least skilled? 
As Charles Michener, our greatest taxonomist of bees, once wrote: Tn other sciences 
the work of incompetents is merely ignored; in taxonomy, because of priority, it is 
preserved.' 

If the Sterling/Doofus ratio were high, priority might pose few problems in practice. 
Unfortunately, those 'Philomathematical Societies' once formed a veritable army, 
issuing cannonade after cannonade of publications filled with new names destined for 
oblivion but technically constituted in correct form. Since every profession has its petty 
legaHsts, its boosters of tidiness and procedure over content, natural history sank into a 
mire of unproductive pedantry that, in Ernst Mayr's words, 'deflected taxonomists 
from biological research into bibliographic archeology'. Legions of technocrats 
delighted in searching obscure and forgotten publications for an earlier name that 
could displace some long-accepted and stable usage. Acrimonious arguments proUfer- 
ated, for Doofus's inadequate descriptions rarely permitted an unambiguous identifi- 
cation of his earUer name with any well-defined species. Thus, a rule introduced to 
estabhsh stability against capricious change for appropriateness sowed even greater 
disruption by forcing the abandonment of accepted names for forgotten predecessors. 

3. Plenary Powers. The abuses of Herr Doofus and his ilk induced a virtual rebellion 
among natural historians. A poll of Scandinavian zoologists, taken in 1 9 11 , yielded 2 in 
favor and 120 opposed to strict priority. All intelligent administrators know that the 
key to a humane and successful bureaucracy lies in creative use of the word ordinarily. 
Strict rules of procedure are ordinarily inviolable — unless a damned good reason for 
disobedience arises, and then flexibility permits humane and rational exceptions. The 
Plenary Powers Rule, adopted in Monaco in 1913 to stem the revolt against strict 
priority, is a codification of the estimable principle of ordinarily. It provided, as quoted 
early in this essay, that the first designation shall prevail, unless a later name has been so 
widely accepted that its suppression in favor of a forgotten predecessor would sow 
confusion and instability. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 91 

Such exceptions to strict priority cannot be asserted by individuals but must be 
officially granted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 
acting under its plenary powers. The procedure is somewhat cumbersome and demands 
a certain investment of time and paper work, but the plenary powers rule has served 
us well and has finally achieved stability by locating the fulcrum between strict 
priority and proper exception. To suppress an earlier name under the plenary powers, a 
taxonomist must submit a formal application and justification to the International 
Commission (a body of some thirty professional zoologists). The Commission then 
publishes the case, invites commentary from taxonomists throughout the world, con- 
siders the initial appeal with all elicited support and rebuttal, and makes a decision by 
majority vote. . ' 

The system has worked well, as two cases may illustrate. The protozoan species 
Tetrahymena pyriforme has long been a staple for biological research, particularly on 
the physiology of single-celled organisms. John Corliss counted more than 1,500 
I papers published over a twenty-seven-year span — all using this name. However, at 
least ten technically valid names, entirely forgotten and unused, predate the first publi- 
cation of Tetrahymena. No purpose would be served by resurrecting any of these earlier 
designations and suppressing the universally accepted Tetrahymena. Corliss's petition 
to the Commission was accepted without protest, and Tetrahymena has been officially 
! accepted under the plenary powers. 

One of my favorite names recently had a much closer brush with official extinction. 
5 The generic names of many animals are the same as their common designation: the 
,[ gorilla is Gorilla; the rat, Rattus. But I know only one case of a vernacular name 
ij identical with both generic and specific parts of the technical Latin. The boa constrictor 
j is (but almost wasn't) Boa constrictor, and it would be a damned shame if we lost this 
lovely consonance. Nevertheless, in 1976, Boa constrictor barely survived one of the 
closest contests ever brought before the Commission, as thirteen members voted to 
suppress this grand name in favor of Boa canina, while fifteen noble nays stood firm and 
saved the day. The details are numerous and not relevant to this essay. Briefly, in the 
founding document of 1758, Linnaeus placed nine species in his genus Boa, including 
canina and constrictor. As later zoologists divided Linnaeus's overly broad concept of 
Boa into several genera, a key question inevitably arose: which of Linnaeus's original 
species should become the 'type' (or name bearer) of the restricted version of Boa, 
and which should be assigned to other genera. Many professional herpetologists had 
accepted canina as the best name bearer (and assigned constrictor to another genus); 
but a world of both technical and common usage from text books to zoo labels to 
horror films recognized Boa constrictor. The Commission narrowly opted, in a tight 
squeeze (sorry, I couldn't resist that one), for the name we all know and love. Ernst 
Mayr, in casting his decisive vote, cited the virtue of stability in validating common 
usage — the basis for the plenary powers decision in the first place: 

I think here is clearly a case where stability is best served by following usage in the 
general zoological literature. I have asked numerous zoologists 'what species does 
the genus Boa call to your mind?' and they all said immediately 'constrictor'. . . . 
Making constrictor the type of Boa will remove all ambiguity from the literature. 

These debates often strike non-professionals as a bit ridiculous — a sign, perhaps, 
that taxonomy is more wordplay than science. After all, science studies the external 



1' 



92 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



world (through the dark glass of our prejudices and perceptions to be sure). Questions 
of first publication versus common usage have nothing to do with the animals 'out 
there', but only with human conventions for naming. But this is the point, not the 
problem. These are debates about names, not things — and the arbitrary criteria of 
human decision making, not boundaries imposed by the external world, apply to our 
resolutions. The aim of these debates (although not always, alas, the outcome) is to cut 
through the verbiage, reach a stable and practical decision, and move on to the world of 
things. 

Which leads, via a segue of some admitted roughness, back to philately. The 
United States government, jumping on the greatest bandwagon since the hula hoop, 
has just issued four striking stamps bearing pictures of dinosaurs — and labeled, 
Tyrannosaurus, Stegosaurus, Pteranodon, and Brontosaurus. 

Thrusting itself, with all the zeal of a convert, into the heart of commercial hype, the 
U.S. Post Office seems committed to shedding its image for stodginess in one fell, crass 
swoop. Its small brochure, announcing October as 'national stamp collecting month', 
manages to sponsor a contest, establish a tie-in both with T-shirts and a videocassette 
for The Land Before Time, and offer a dinosaur 'discovery kit' (a $9.95 value for just 
$3.95; 'valid while supplies last. Better hurry!'). You will, in this context, probably not 
be surprised to learn that the stamps were officially launched on 1 October 1989, in 
Orlando, Florida, at Disney World. 

Amidst this maelstrom of marketing, the Post Office has also engendered quite a 
brouhaha about the supposed subject of one stamp — a debate given such prominence 
in the press that much of the public (at least judging from my voluminous mail) now 
thinks that an issue of great scientific importance has been raised to the detriment and 
shame of an institution otherwise making a worthy step to modernity. (We must leave 
this question for another time, but I confess great uneasiness about such approbation. 
I appreciate the argument that T-shirts and videos heighten awareness and expose 
aspects of science to milUons of kids otherwise unreached. I understand why many will 
accept the forceful spigot of hype, accompanied by the watering-down of content — all 
in the interest of extending contact. But the argument works only if, having made 
contact, we can then woo these kids to a deeper intellectual interest and commitment. 
Unfortunately, we are often all too ready to compromise. We hear the blandishments: 
dumb it down; hype it up. But go too far and there is no turning back; you lose your 
own soul by dripping degrees. The space for wooing disappears down the maw of 
commerciaHsm. Too many wise people, from Shakespeare to my grandmother, have 
said that dignity is the only bit of our being that cannot be put up for sale.) 

This growing controversy has even reached the august editorial pages of the New 
York Times (11 October 1989), and their description serves as a fine epitome of the 
supposed mess: 

The Postal Service has taken heavy flak for mislabeling its new 25-cent dinosaur 
stamp, a drawing of a pair of dinosaurs captioned 'Brontosaurus'. Furious purists 
point out that the 'brontosaurus' is now properly called 'apatosaurus'. They accuse 
the stamp's authors of fostering scientific illiteracy, and want the stamps recalled. 

Brontosaurus versus Apatosaurus. Which is right? How important is this issue? How 
does it rank amidst a host of other controversies surrounding this and other dinosaurs: 
what head belongs on this dinosaur (whether it be called Brontosaurus or Apatosaurus); 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



93 



were these large dinosaurs warmblooded; why did they become extinct? The press often 
does a good job of reporting the basic facts of a dispute, but fails miserably in supplying 
the context that would allow a judgment about importance. I have tried, in the first 
part of this essay, to supply the necessary context for grasping Brontosaurus versus 
Apatosaurus. I regret to report, and shall now document, that the issue could hardly be 
more trivial — for the dispute is only about names, not about things. The empirical 
question was settled to everyone's satisfaction in 1903. To understand the argument 
about names, we must know the rules of taxonomy and something about the history of 
debate on the principle of priority. But the exposure of context for Brontosaurus versus 
Apatosaurus does provide an interesting story in itself and does raise important issues 
about the public presentation of science — and thus do I hope to snatch victory (or at 
least interest) from the jaws of defeat (or triviahty). 

Brontosaurus versus Apatosaurus is a direct legacy of the most celebrated feud in the 
history of vertebrate paleontology — Cope versus Marsh. As E.D. Cope and O.C. 
Marsh vied for the glory of finding spectacular dinosaurs and mammals in the 
American West, they fell into a pattern of rush and superficiality born of their intense 
competition and mutual disUke. Both wanted to bag as many names as possible, so 
they published too quickly, often with inadequate descriptions, careless study, and 
poor illustrations. In this unseemly rush, they frequently gave names to fragmentary 
material that could not be well characterized and sometimes described the same 
creature twice by failing to make proper distinctions among the fragments. (For a good 
history of this issue, see D.S. Berman and J.S. Mcintosh, 'Skull and Relationships of 
the Upper Jurassic Sauropod Apatosaurus' , Bulletin of the Carnegie Museum of Natural 
History, no. 8, 1978. These authors point out that both Cope and Marsh often 
described and officially named a species when only a few bones had been excavated and 
most of the skeleton remained in the ground.) 

In 1877, in a typically rushed note, O.C. Marsh named and described Apatosaurus 
ajax in two paragraphs without illustrations ('Notice of New Dinosaurian Reptiles 
from the Jurassic Formation', American Journal of Science, vol. 14, 1877, pp. 514—16). 
Although he noted that this 'gigantic dinosaur ... is represented in the Yale Museum 
by a nearly complete skeleton in excellent preservation'. Marsh described only the 
vertebral column. In 1879, he published another page of information and presented the 
first sketchy illustrations — of pelvis, shoulder blade, and a few vertebrae ('Principal 
Characters of American Jurassic Dinosaurs, Part IF, American Journal of Science, vol. 
17, 1879, pp. 86-92). He also took this opportunity to pour some vitriol upon Mr 
Cope, claiming that Cope had misnamed and misdescribed several forms in his haste. 
'Conclusions based on such work'. Marsh asserts, 'will naturally be received with 
distrust by anatomists.' 

In another 1879 article. Marsh introduced the genus Brontosaurus, with two 
paragraphs (even shorter than those initially devoted to Apatosaurus), no illustrations, 
and just a few comments on the pelvis and vertebrae. He did estimate the length of his 
new beast at seventy to eighty feet, in comparison with some fifty feet for Apatosaurus 
('Notice of New Jurassic Reptiles', American Journal of Science, vol. 18, 1879, 
pp. 501-5). 

Marsh considered Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus as distinct but closely related 
genera within the larger family of sauropod dinosaurs. But Brontosaurus soon became 
everyone's typical sauropod — indeed the canonical herbivorous dinosaur of popular 



94 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



consciousness, from the Sinclair logo to Walt Disney's Fantasia — for a simple and 
obvious reason. Marsh's Brontosaurus skeleton, from the most famous of all dinosaur 
locaHties at Como Bluff quarry 10, Wyoming, remains to this day 'one of the most 
complete sauropod skeletons ever found' (quoted from Berman and Mcintosh, cited 
previously). Marsh mounted the skeleton at Yale and often published his spectacular 
reconstruction of the entire animal. (Apatosaurus, meanwhile, remained a pelvis and 
some vertebrae.) In his great summary work. The Dinosaurs of North America, Marsh 
wrote (1896): 'The best-known genus of the Atlantosauridae is Brontosaurus, described 
by the writer in 1879, the type specimen being a nearly entire skeleton, by far the most 
complete of any of the Sauropoda yet discovered.' Brontosaurus also became the source 
of the old stereotype, now so strongly challenged, of slow, stupid, lumbering dinosaurs. 
Marsh wrote in 1883, when presenting his full reconstruction of Brontosaurus for the 
first time: 

A careful estimate of the size of Brontosaurus, as here restored, shows that when 
Hving the animal must have weighed more than twenty tons. The very small head and 
brain, and slender neural cord, indicate a stupid, slow-moving reptile. The beast was 
wholly without offensive or defensive weapons, or dermal armature. In habits, 
Brontosaurus was more or less amphibious, and its food was probably aquatic plants 
or other succulent vegetation. 

In 1903, Elmer Riggs of the Field Museum in Chicago restudied Marsh's sauropods. 
Paleontologists had realized by then that Marsh had been overgenerous in his desig- 
nation of species (a 'splitter' in our jargon), and that many of his names would have to 
be consoUdated. When Riggs restudied Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus, he recognized 
them as two versions of the same creature, with Apatosaurus as a more juvenile 
specimen. No big deal; it happens all the time. Riggs rolled the two genera into one in 
a single paragraph: 

The genus Brontosaurus was based chiefly upon the structure of the scapula and 
the presence of five vertebrae in the sacrum. After examining the type specimens of 
these genera, and making a careful study of the unusually well-preserved specimen 
described in this paper, the writer is convinced that the Apatosaur specimen is merely 
a young animal of the form represented in the adult by the Brontosaur specimen. . . . 
In view of these facts the two genera may be regarded as synonymous. As the term 
'Apatosaurus' has priority, 'Brontosaurus' will be regarded as a synonym. 

In 1903, ten years before the plenary powers decision, strict priority ruled in zoologi- 
cal nomenclature. Thus, Riggs had no choice but to sink the later name, Brontosaurus, 
once he had decided that Marsh's earher name, Apatosaurus, represented the same 
animal. But then I rather doubt that Riggs would have gone to bat for Brontosaurus 
even if he could have submitted a case on its behalf. After all, Brontosaurus was not yet 
an icon of pop culture in 1903 — no Sinclair logo, no Alley-Oop, no Fantasia, no Land 
Before Time. Both names were generally unknown, and Riggs probably didn't lament 
the demise of Brontosaurus. 

No one has ever seriously challenged Riggs's conclusion, and professionals have 
always accepted his synonymy. But PubHcation 82 of the 'Geological Series of the Field 
Columbian Museum' for 1 903 — the reference for Riggs's article — never gained much 
popular currency. The name Brontosaurus, still affixed to skeletons in museums 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



95 



throughout the world, still perpetuated in countless popular and semi-technical books 
about nature, never lost its luster, despite its technical limbo. Anyone could have 
applied to the Commission for suppression of Apatosaums under the plenary powers in 
recognition of the widespread popularity and stability of Brontosaurus. I suspect that 
such an application would have succeeded. But no one bothered, and a good name 
remains in limbo. (I also wish that someone had fought for the suppression of the 
unattractive and inappropriate name Hyracotherium in favor of the lovely but later 
Eohippus, also coined by Marsh. But again, no one did.) 

I'm afraid there's not much more to this story — not nearly the issue hyped by your 
newspapers as the great stamp flap. No argument of fact arises at all, just a question of 
names, settled in 1903, but never transferred to a general culture that continues to learn 
and favor the technically invalid name Brontosaurus. But the story does illustrate 
something troubling about the presentation of science in popular media. The world of 
USA Today is a place of instant fact and no analysis. Hundreds of bits come at us 
in pieces never lasting more than a few seconds — for the dumbdowners tell us 
that average Americans can't assimilate anything more complex or pay attention to 
anything longer. 

This oddly 'democratic' procedure makes all bits equal — the cat who fell off" a roof 
in Topeka (and lived) gets the same space as the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. 
Democracy is a magnificent system for human rights and morality in general, but it just 
doesn't apply to the evaluation of information. We are bombarded with too much in 
our inordinately complex world; if we cannot sort the trivial from the profound, we 
are lost in terminal overload. The criteria for sorting must involve context and 
theory — the larger perspective that a good education provides. 

In the current dinosaur craze without context, all bits are mined for their superficial 
news value as items in themselves — a lamentable tendency abetted by the 'trivial 
pursuits' one-upmanship that confers status on people who know (and flaunt) the most 
bits. (If you play this dangerous game in real life, remember that ignorance of context is 
the surest mark of a phony. If you approach me in wild lament, claiming that our postal 
service has mocked the deepest truth of paleontology, I will know that you have only 
skimmed the surface of my field.) 

Consider the four items mentioned earlier in this essay. They are often presented in 
USA Today style as equal factoids. But with a context to sort the trivial from the 
profound, we may recognize some as statements about words, others as entries to 
the most general questions we can ask about the history of Hfe. Apatosaurus versus 
Brontosaurus is a legalistic quibble about words and rules of naming. Leave the 
Post Office alone. They take enough flak (much justified of course) as it is. The proper 
head for Apatosaurus is an interesting empirical issue, but of little moment beyond 
the sauropods. Marsh found no skull associated with either his Apatosaurus or his 
Brontosaurus skeleton. He guessed wrong and mounted the head of another sauropod 
genus called Camarosaurus. Apatosaurus actually bore a head much more like that of 
the different genus Diplodocus. The head issue {Camarosaurus-\\k.e, versus Diplodocus- 
hke) and the name issue {Apatosaurus versus Brontosaurus) are entirely separate 
questions, although they have been confused in the press. 

The question of warmbloodedness (quite unresolved at the moment) is more 
general still, as it aff"ects our basic concepts of dinosaur physiology and eflficiency. The 
issue of extinction is the broadest of all — for basic patterns of life's history are set by 



96 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1 990 



diflferential survival of groups through episodes of mass dying. We are here today, 
arguing about empty issues Hke Apatosaurus versus Brontosaurus, because mammals 
got through the great Cretaceous extinction, while dinosaurs did not. 

I hate to be a shill for the Post Office, but I think that they made the right decision this 
time. Responding to the great Apatosaurus flap. Postal Bulletin Number 21744 pro- 
claimed: 'Although now recognized by the scientific community as Apatosaurus, the 
name Brontosaurus was used for the stamp because it is more famihar to the general 
population. Similarly, the term dinosaur has been used generically to describe all the 
animals, even though the Pteranodon was a flying reptile'. Touche and right on; no one 
bitched about Pteranodon, and that's a real error. Moreover, members of the American 
Museum and readers of this magazine have no right to upbraid the Post Office. Page 
twenty-nine of the November 1 989 Natural History features an ad for dinosaur neckties 
sold by the American Museum shop. The Hst includes Pteranodon, Dimetrodon (a 
mammalian ancestor, not a dinosaur), and 'Brontosaurus' proudly so called. 

The Post Office has been more right than the complainers, for Uncle Sam has worked 
in the spirit of the plenary powers rule. Names fixed in popular usage may be validated 
even if older designations have technical priority. But now ... Oh Lord, why didn't I see 
it before! Now I suddenly grasp what this is all about! It's a plot, a dastardly plot 
sponsored by the apatophiles — that secret society long dedicated to gaining support 
for Marsh's original name against a potential appeal to the plenary powers. They never 
had a prayer before. Whatever noise they made, whatever assassinations they 
attempted, they could never get anyone to pay attention, never disturb the tranquillity 
and general acceptance of Brontosaurus. But now that the Post Office officially 
adopted Brontosaurus, they have found their opening. Now enough people know about 
Apatosaurus for the first time. Now an appeal to the plenary powers would not lead to 
the validation of Brontosaurus, for Apatosaurus has gained precious currency. They 
have won; we brontophiles have been defeated. 

Apatosaurus means 'deceptive lizard'; Brontosaurus means 'thunder lizard' — a far, 
far better name (but appropriateness, alas, as we have seen, counts for nothing). They 
have deceived us; we brontophiles have been outmaneuvered. Oh well, graciousness in 
defeat before all (every bit as important as dignity, if not an aspect thereof). I retreat, 
not with a bang of thunder, but with a whimper of hope that rectification may someday 
arise from the ashes of my stamp album. 

Stephen Jay Gould teaches biology, geology, and the history of science at Harvard 
University. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



97 



Family-group names in fishes: grammatical nicety or pragmatism? A plea 
for stability 

Alwyne Wheeler 

Epping Forest Conservation Centre, High Beach, Loughton, Essex IGIO 4AF, 

U.K. 

Although family names are essential to the elaboration of a hierarchical system of 
classification such as is required by systematists, they serve other important functions. 
Because family groupings provide a more readily understood unit of classification to 
non-systematists than those above or below family level they are widely used, giving a 
group name of manageable comprehension. In addition, retrieval systems, whether in 
current awareness services or library indexes and in both manual and computerized 
forms, and biological recording systems depend heavily on groupings at family 
level. This level is the base fine on which most of these systems operate. Their import- 
ance cannot be overestimated, nor can the need to stabilize usage in acceptably clear 
forms. 

Family names have an important role in formal communication in that papers of a 
scientific nature usually include within the title or abstract both family and ordinal 
names (a practice on which abstracting services and retrieval systems depend). Both 
informal writing and oral communication also rely heavily on family names and their 
use provides a framework within which the reader or listener can relate the information 
to known parameters. Biologists who are not primarily taxonomists, for example 
fishery workers, environmental archaeologists, and ecologists, employ family names 
in both formal and informal contexts. Because family names usually have a greater 
stabihty once properly established they occupy an important role in communication 
within the biological sciences. It is therefore desirable that they are stable in form and in 
usage; as an example, this was recognized by the Commission 32 years ago when (in 
Opinion 500) the name pieridae was accepted for the 'White' butterflies, rather than 
the grammatically correct PIERIDIDAE. ' . 

In fishes, after a long period of relative uniformity of usage, uncertainty about the 
form of some family names has been created by Steyskal's (1980) claim that several 
widely used family names are not grammatically correct in form. As a result some 
ichthyologists have adopted the form recommended by Steyskal, other have deliber- 
ately ignored his recommendations. Some of the former, after many years of using the 
'incorrect' form, are now advocating the 'correct' usage in non-taxonomic fields with 
the zeal of the newly-converted, which causes confusion. 

Two cases in which maintenance of a widely used family name of 'incorrect' form has 
been defended by an authority in the group — cobitidae rather than cobitididae, and 
LiPARiDAE rather than liparididae — have recently come before the Commission 
(BZN 43: 360-362, 45: 178-179; and BZN 45: 130-131). Others will undoubtedly 
follow in time. 

Other examples involve groups of fishes which are frequently referred to in the 
hterature for various reasons. Thus, the anchovy family name engraulidae (or 
ENGRAULiDiDAE, as 'corrcctcd' by Steyskal) for a group of very important commercial 
fishes is frequently used in fisheries hterature. The sleeper family eleotridae (or 



98 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



ELEOTRroiDAE) is extremely speciose in tropical shallow seas and freshwaters and 
features frequently in literature on coastal ecology, as does the family of butterfishes, 
PHOLiDAE (or pholididae) in northern temperate and Arctic seas. Both the sting ray 
and the eagle ray families, dasyattoae and myliobatidae (or dasyatididae and 
myliobatididae) have minirnal importance in fisheries but feature in the medical 
literature on account of the toxins associated with envenomed tail spines. Other fishes 
feature in the Uterature on account of their interesting symbiotic behaviour or evol- 
utionary interest, e.g. the shark sucker family echeneidae (or echeneididae) and the 
pearl fishes carapidae (or carapodidae), while the Australian lung-fish, Neoceratodus 
forsteri, is usually referred by authors to the family ceratodidae (but 'should' be 

CER ATODONTID AE) . 

It will be apparent that many of the above examples of family names in their gram- 
matically correct forms (in parentheses) are more complicated and thus more liable to 
error in transcription, but, more importantly, become almost unpronounceable if 
spoken either in formal usage or in adjectival form. This is a serious disadvantage when 
these names are in widespread use by non-taxonomists. 

Rather than adopting the grammatically correct forms of family names (vide 
Skeyskal, 1980) without consideration of the consequences, it is preferable to analyse 
past usage of these names. In another nomenclatural context Stearn (1985) refers to 
usage resulting from 'the consent of the learned' which he defines as fairly consistent 
usage by nineteenth-century botanists of standing. In the present case involving family 
names which were rarely stabilized in the nineteenth century, I propose citing authors 
of authoritative world surveys of recent fishes with the addition of the list of names 
of North American fishes (Robins et al., 1980) which is a critical work compiled by 
a committee of speciaHsts. These authorities are Giinther (1860, 1861, 1868, 1870), 
Jordan (1923), Berg (1940), Norman (1966), Greenwood et al. (1966), Lindberg (1971) 
and Nelson (1976). (Norman's Ust is confined to marine fishes. The later edition of 
Nelson (1984) followed Steyskal's paper and is not quoted.) I have selected these 
authors as forming 'the consent of the learned' because in fisting recognized famifies 
they have had to make a critical choice in spelling the name. 

The ten family names cited above (including the two already referred to the 
Commission) are Usted below in alphabetical order with an indication of the form in 
which they were employed by these authors. Where one of the authors is not cited he 
made no reference to the family, or used another family name. 

CARAPIDAE — Jordan (1923), Norman (1966), Greenwood et al. (1966), Lindberg 
(1971), Nelson (1976), Robins et al. (1980). carapodidae — Steyskal (1980). 
CERATODIDAE — Berg (1940), Lindberg (1971), Nelson (1976). ceratodontidae — 
Steyskal (1980), also used by Jordan (1923). 

cobitidae — Jordan (1923), Berg (1940), Greenwood et al. (1966), Lindberg (1971), 
Nelson (1976), Robins et al. (1980). cobitididae — Steyskal (1980), used in the form 
cobitidina by Gunther (1868). cobitidae was ruled to be the correct spelUng in 
Opinion 1500 (June 1988, BZN45: 178-179). 

DASYATiDAE— Jordan (1923), Norman (1966), Lindberg (1971), Nelson (1976), Robins 
et al. (1980). dasyatididae — Steyskal (1980). 

ECHENEIDAE — Jordan (1923), Berg (1940), Greenwood et al. (1966), Lindberg (1971), 
Nelson (1976), Robins et al. (1980). echeneididae — Steyskal (1980), also used by 
Norman (1966). 



BulletinofZoologicalNomenclature47(2) June 1990 99 

ELEOTREDAE — Jordan (1923), Berg (1940), Norman (1966), Greenwood et al. (1966), 
Lindberg (1971), Nelson (1976), Robins et al. (1980). eleotrididae — Steyskal (1980). 
ENGRAULroAE — Jordan (1923), Berg (1940), Greenwood et al. (1966) in synonymy, 
Norman (1966, as engraulinae), Lindberg (1971), Nelson (1976), Robins et al. (1980). 
Used in the form engraulina by Giinther (1868). engraulididae — Steyskal (1980). 
LiPARiDAE — Jordan (1923), Greenwood et al. (1966) in synonymy, Lindberg (1971). 
Used in the form liparidina by Giinther (1861). liparididae — Steyskal (1980). 
MYLIOBATIDAE — Gunther (1870), Jordan (1923), Berg (1940), Norman (1966), 
Lindberg (1971), Nelson (1976), Robins et al. (1980). myliobatididae — Steyskal 
(1980). 

PHOLroAE — Jordan (1923), Berg (1940), Robins et al. (1980). pholididae — Steyskal 
(1980), as used by Norman (1966), Greenwood et al. (1966), Lindberg (1971), Nelson 
(1976). 

It can be seen from this that in most cases these authors have employed what are said 
to be 'incorrect' names and as these are works of reference, widely cited when current, 
the usage of all (except for pholidae) is heavily in favour of these names. 

Steyskal's proposals were critically reviewed by Robins et al. (1980) in their listing of 
North American fishes and the majority were rejected in their list. In the introduction to 
their check-list they 'deplored' the imposition of allegedly correct endings to some 
family names overturning well estabhshed and familiar names. Kottelat (1984, p. 227), 
Cocks (BZN 45: 179), Wheeler (BZN 45:292) and Mayr (BZN 46: 45) have opposed 
changes in cobitidae and/or liparidae on the grounds of supposed correctness of 
grammar. These comments reinforce the proposal relating to Article 29b(i) in the 
Minutes of the Section of Zoological Nomenclature, lUBS Canberra (October 1988, 
BZN 46: 16) that in the construction of family-group names in certain circumstances 
the stem should be elided so that the name had the form -idae rather than -ididae. This 
note concluded that ichthyologists would favour such a change. 

The confusion caused by Steyskal's proposals could be resolved by application to the 
Commission for rulings on each name, as has been done for cobitidae and liparidae. 
However, this would be a time-consuming business and not cost-effective for either 
ichthyologists or the staff of the Commission, and the lapse of time while cases were 
prepared, amended and published and before a ruling could be given would cause a 
great deal of uncertainty in use. The decision as to which, if any, of Steyskal's proposed 
amendments to 71 currently used family-group names could be adopted without 
offending accepted usage (and particularly without producing infelicitous adjectival 
nomenclature) cannot be undertaken piecemeal and calls for the urgent establishment 
of an international committee of specialists to advise on fish nomenclature. 

References 

Berg, L.S. 1947. Classification of fishes both recent and fossil. 517 pp. Edwards, Ann Arbor. 
Greenwood, P.H., Rosen, D.R., Weitzman, S.H. & Myers, G.S. 1966. Phyletic studies of 

Teleostean fishes, with a provisional classification of living forms. Bulletin of the American 

Museum of Natural History, 131(4): 339-456. 
Gunther, A. 1860. Catalogue of the Acanthopterygian Fishes in the Collection of the British 

Museum. Vol. 2. 548 pp. British Museum, London. 
Gunther, A. 1861. Catalogue of the Acanthopterygian Fishes in the Collection of the British 

Museum. Vol. 3. 586 pp. Brifish Museum, London. 



100 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



Giinther, A. 1868. Catalogue of the Fishes in the British Museum. Vol. 7. 512 pp. British Museum, 
London. 

Giinther, A. 1870. Catalogue of the Fishes in the British Museum. Vol. 8. 549 pp. British Museum, 
London. 

Jordan, D.S. 1923 (1963). The genera of Fishes and Classification of Fishes. (Reprinted edition). 

800 pp. Stanford University Press, Stanford. 
Kottelat, M. 1984. Revision of the Indonesian and Malaysian loaches of the subfamily 

Noemacheilinae. Japanese Journal of Ichthyology, 31: 225-260. 
Lindberg, G.U. 1971. Fishes of the World. A key to Families and a checklist. 545 pp. [Israel 

Programme for Scientific Translations], New York. 
Nelson, J.S. 1976. Fishes of the World. 417 pp. Wiley, New York. 
Nelson, J.S. 1984. Fishes of the World. (Second edition). 523 pp. Wiley, New York. 
Norman, J.R. 1966. Draft Synopsis of the Orders, Families and Genera of Recent Fishes and Fish- 
like Vertebrates. 649 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. 
Robins, C.R., Bailey, R.M., Bond, C.E., Brooker, J.R., Lachner, E.A., Lea, R.N. & Scott, W.B. 

1980. A list of common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. 

Special Publication American Fisheries Society, No. 12. 174 pp. 
Stearn, W.T. 1985. Hookerianus or hookeranusl Notes on the ending -erianus in plant names. The 

Garden, 110(10): 463-A65. 
Steyskal, G.C. 1980. The grammar of family-group names as exemplified by those of fishes. 

Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 93(1): 168-177. 

[A comment on this Article appears in BZN 47: 138] 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



101 



Case 2630 

Helix {Helicigona) bar bat a Ferussac, 1832 (currently Lindholmiola 
barbata; MoUusca, Gastropoda): proposed confirmation of lectotype 
designation 

Dietrich Kadolsky , 
Meadowcroft, 54 Ewell Downs Road, Ewell, Surrey KT17 3BN, U.K. 

Abstract. The purpose of this appHcation is to conserve the name barbata Ferussac, 
1832 in its accustomed usage for a S.E. European species of pulmonate gastropod. The 
nomenclature of the nominal taxa Helix {Helicigona) lens Ferussac, 1832 and H. (H.) 
barbata Ferussac, 1832 has recently been reviewed by Gittenberger & Groh (1986), but 
unfortunately their lectotype selection for barbata is not valid under the Code. 



1 . The names Helix (Helicigona) lens and H. (H.) barbata were both nomina nuda 
when published by Ferussac in 1821. Gittenberger & Groh (1986, p. 222), however, 
consider barbata as available from 1821. As a completely different interpretation of 
the names results from Ferussac's 1821 and 1832 publications, the subject of the 
availabihty of H. (H.) barbata has to be addressed first. . ■ o, ■ li- 

2. The full text of Ferussac 1821 (1821a, p. 37; 1821b, p. 41) reads: ■ : ' 
'NO. 152. BARBATA nobis. , • 
a) Minus depressa. 

P) Brunnea. 

Habit. Zante; Comm. le Cte mercati. Scio, Sestos, olivier. 

a) sur les rochers eleves pres la Sude, OLIVIER. > T 

P) L'ile de Zante. 

No. 153. LENS, nobis 

Habit. L'ile de Tenerife, mauge.' 

3. Gittenberger & Groh (1986) took the diagnoses of a and P as sufficient to validate 
the nominal taxon Helix (Helicigona) barbata. However, when these diagnoses are 

i related to the list of localities, it is clear that only two of the three groups within the 
species have been diagnosed. The most logical interpretation of the text is that the 
undiagnosed group of specimens from 'Zante' and 'Scio, Sestos' is the typical group, 
with a and p as variants. The usage of Greek lower case letters for infra-specific 
categories ('varieties') was common in the period: the content of the diagnoses implies 
a variation from the norm which is not specified; 'a' is less depressed than what? 'P' 
is coloured brown, but what is the colour of the others? Obviously the variants do 
not define or describe the 'typical' form of the nominal species barbata; this name is 
therefore not available from this work. 

4. The species names lens and barbata became available in 1 832 with the pubhcation 
of figures on Plate 66* in the 23rd livraison of Ferussac's Histoire Naturelle .... (1832b), 
for which an explanation was issued simultaneously (1832a). These bibhographic 
details are according to Kennard (1942, p. 1 10). It should be noted here that the 1821 



102 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1 990 



and 1832 works were written by J.B.L. d'A. de Ferussac and published posthumously 
by his son, A. E.J. P. J. F. d'A. de Ferussac. A study of the type series (dating from 1821) 
of Helix lens and Helix barbata in the Laboratoire Biologique des Invertebres Marins et 
Malacologie, Paris, reveals that the meaning of the species names was interchanged 
between Ferussac 1821 and 1832. The type series are annotated below, as Gittenberger 
& Groh's description contains several errors regarding the status of the specimens. The 
nomenclature used by Ferussac in 1821 and 1832 and by Gittenberger & Groh in 1986 
referring to the type specimens is tabulated for easy reference: 



Notes 


Ferussac, 


Ferussac, 1832; 


Gittenberger & Groh, 1986 


on the 


1821; a, p. 37; 


a, p. ij; b, P1.66* 


(LT = lectotype designation) 


type 


b,p. 41 [all 






series 


nomina nuda] 






1 


barbata 


lens Fig. 2 


Lindholmiola lens LT Fig. 2 


2 


barbata a 






3 


barbata P 




Lindholmiola lens 


4 




barbata var. a 
Fig.3 


Lindholmiola barbata LT Fig.3 


5 


lens 


barbata Fig.4 


Canariella fortunata 
(Shuttleworth, 1852) 



Notes on the type series 

1 . 5 specimens labelled 'Helicigona Barbata nos. 1 ,2,3 du Cte. Mercaty Zante'; 4 speci- 
mens labelled 'Helix barbata Fer. de Sestos par M. Olivier 1819'. All are currently 
known as Lindholmiola lens (Ferussac, 1832), a species known to live in Greece. 

2. No specimens could be identified amongst several lots of Lindholmiola lens, which 
exist additionally to the type series mentioned under 1 above, in the Ferussac collection. 

3. 4 specimens labelled 'Helicigona barbata var P) Brunnea. No. 4 Cte Mercaty. Zante'. 
These are old shells of Lindholmiola lens stained by brown loam! 

4. No material was found in the Ferussac collection. This is obviously not the variety a 
of 1821, which is said to be less depressed than the 'typical' form (cf. note 1), while 
Fig. 3 shows a more depressed shell. 

5. 2 specimens from Tenerife, labelled Helicigona lens, collected by Mauge. These are 
Helix fortunata Shuttleworth, 1852 (p. 141; currently in Canariella), known to exist in 
Tenerife. 

5. The designation by Gittenberger & Groh of PI. 66*, Fig. 2 as representing the 
lectotype of Helix lens Ferussac, 1 832 is vahd, but their designation of Fig. 3 for Helix 
barbata is not, because it was referred to by Ferussac (1832) as a variant (Article 
72b(i) of the Code). Only the specimen on Fig. 4 would be available as a lectotype for 
Helix barbata. Such a designation would have the unfortunate effect of rendering 
Canariella fortunata (Shuttleworth, 1852) a junior objective synonym of H. barbata, 
while a new name would have to be introduced for the species represented by Fig. 3 
(E. Gittenberger pers. comm.). 

6. Gittenberger & Groh's lectotype designation for H. barbata would not be appro- 
priate even under the assumption that the name is available from 1821. The material on 
which H. (H.) barbata Ferussac, 1821 was apparently based (Note 1 above) is referred 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



103 



to lens by Ferussac (1832) and by Gittenberger & Groh (1986). To choose a lectotype 
for barbata from this material would give this name a meaning contrary to its estab- 
lished use (Gittenberger & Groh, 1986), render H. (H.) lens a junior objective synonym 
and would again leave the species represented in Fig. 3 without its accustomed name 
barbata, or indeed any name. Thus, in order to achieve nomenclatural stabihty in the 
manner in which Gittenberger & Groh intended, it is necessary to use the plenary 
powers to confirm their designation of the 'var. a' specimen on PI. 66*, fig. 3 as the 
lectotype of H. (H.) barbata Ferussac, 1832. 

7. The principal purpose of this application is the confirmation of Gittenberger & 
Groh's lectotype designation for barbata, so removing any threat to the name lens, 
which has been accepted in the sense of Ferussac's PI. 66*, fig. 2 since the publication 
of this figure in 1832 (see Gittenberger & Groh, 1986). The nominal species Helix 
(Helicigona) lens is the type species of the genus Lindholmiola Hesse, 1931 (p. 50) by 
original designation. The proposals also have the effect of maintaining the names 
Lindholmiola barbata and Canariella fortunata in their accustomed sense. 

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to confirm that the name Helix {Helicigona) barbata is available from Ferussac 
(1832) and not from Ferussac (1821); 

(2) to use its plenary powers to confirm the designation by Gittenberger & Groh 
(1986) of the specimen figured by Ferussac (1832, PI. 66*, fig. 3) as the lectotype 
of the nominal species Helix {Helicigona) barbata Ferussac, 1832; 

(3) to place on the Oflficial List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Lindholmiola 
Hesse, 1931 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Helix 
{Helicigona) lens Ferussac, 1832; 

(4) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) barbata Ferussac, 1832 as pubHshed in the combination Helix {Helicigona) 
barbata and as interpreted by the lectotype confirmed in (2) above; 

(b) lens Ferussac, 1832 as pubHshed in the combination Helix {Helicigona) lens 
(specific name of the type species of Lindholmiola Hesse, 1931). 

References 

Ferussac, J.B.L. d'A. de. 182L Tableau systematique des animaux mollusques... suivis d'un 
prodrome general pour tous les mollusques terrestres ou fluviatiles vivants ou fossiles. Tableau 
systematique de la famille des limagons. Cochleae. Quarto edition (1821a): 111 pp.; Folio 
edition (1821b): 1 14 pp. Bertrand, Paris. 

Ferussac, J.B.L. d'A. de. 1 832. Histoire naturelle generale et particuliere des mollusques terrestres 
et fluviatiles. 1832a: Explication des planches des livraisons 22-27, 4 pp. (issued jointly with 
livraisons 22-27). 1832b: livraison 23. plates 8D, 9B, 27A, 64, 66*, 124A. Bertrand, Paris. 

Gittenberger, E. & Groh, K. 1986. Zum Status der FERUSSAC'schen Taxa Helix lens und Helix 
barbata (Pulmonata: Helicidae). Archiv fiir Molluskenkunde, 116: 219-223. 

Hesse, P. 1931. Zur Anatomie und Systematik palaearktischer Stylommatophoren. Zoologica, 
31(81): 1-118. 

Kennard, A.S. 1942. The Histoire and Prodrome of Ferussac. Proceedings of the Malacological 

Society of London, 25: 12-17, 105-118. 
Shuttleworth, R.J. 1852. Diagnosen einiger neuer Mollusken aus den Canarischen Inseln. 

Mittheilungen der naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Bern, 1852: 137-146. 
Zilch, A. 1959-1960. Gastropoda Euthyneura in Schindewolf, O.H. (Ed.), Handbuch der 

Paldozoologie, vol. 6, part 2. xii, 835 pp. Berlin. 



104 

Case 2699 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



RissooiDEA (or rissoacea) Gray, 1847 (MoUusca, Gastropoda): 
proposed precedence over truncatelloidea (or truncatellacea) 
Gray, 1840 

G. Rosenberg & G. M. Davis 

Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, U.S.A. 

Abstract. The purpose of this appHcation is to conserve the family-group name 
RISSOOIDEA Gray, 1847 for one of the largest superfamilies in the Mollusca. The name 
is threatened by the senior family-group name truncatelloidea Gray, 1840, over 
which it is proposed it be given precedence. 



1. When Gray introduced the family-group names truncatellidae (1840, p. 117; 
based on Truncatella Risso, 1826) and rissoidae (1847, p. 152; as subfamily rissoaina, 
based on Rissoa Desmarest, 1814), he did not consider the taxa to be closely related. He 
allied the rissoids with the melaniids, whereas he grouped the truncatellids with the 
pyramidellids and acteonids (1847, pp. 152, 159). Other authors of that period con- 
nected the truncatellids with terrestrial operculates such as the helicinids and cyclo- 
phorids (Binney, 1851, p. 351; H. & A. Adams, 1855, p. 273). Later, Bland & Binney 
(1872), Tryon (1883, p. 277) and Vayssiere (1886) established the relationship of trun- 
catellids with rissoids. Thiele (1929, p. 136) was the first to recognize rissoacea as a 
superfamily, and he was followed by Wenz (1939, p. 554). Virtually all subsequent 
authors have recognized the superfamily (Davis, 1979, p. 7). Thiele (p. 151) placed 
Truncatella Risso, 1826 in the truncatellinae in the hydrobcdae Troschel, 1857 
(p. 106), whereas Wenz (p. 581) placed it directly in the truncatellidae. Baker (1956, 
p. 29) was the first to suggest the use of a superfamilial name based on Truncatella; he 
first used truncatelloidea in a classification in 1964 (p. 171). 

2. Because truncatellidae Gray, 1840 is on the Official List (1955, Opinion 344), 
and because Baker (1956, 1960) pointed out that the name truncatellidae was older 
than the names rissoidae, hydrobiidae and bithyniedae Troschel, 1857 (p. 101), the 
priority of truncatelloidea over rissooidea has been established. Despite this, mala- 
cologists have continued to use rissooidea and rissoacea, and Davis (1979, p. 7) and 
Ponder (1985, p. 1 5) explicitly favoured retention of rissoacea over truncatellacea. 
Ponder (p. 1 5) stated that he intended to submit a petition to the ICZN to suppress 
truncatellacea in favour of rissoacea, and some authors have maintained use of 
rissoacea for this reason (e.g. Bieler & Mikkelsen, 1988, p. 2). 

3. We have given the Secretariat a representative list of 48 works pubUshed from 
1959 to 1989 that place the truncatellidae or Truncatella in rissooidea or rissoacea. 
These works are by 55 authors in 19 countries. This fist does not consider the hundreds 
of authors who have used rissooidea or rissoacea in their classifications without 
mention of Truncatella, truncatellidae or truncatelloidea. The only authors we 
have found who have given truncatelloidea priority over rissooidea are Baker 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



105 



(1964), Burch and his co-workers (Burch, 1980, p. 136; 1982a, p. 3; 1982b, p. 219; 
Upathamet al., 1983, pp. 114, 118; Burch & Chung, 1985, p. 34) and some in a volume 
edited by Ponder in 1988 (Houbrick, p. 88; Ponder, p. 130; Ponder & Waren, p. 296; 
but not Haszprunar, p. 7). In Burch (1980) and Burch & Chung (1985), rissooidea is 
incorrectly attributed to H. & A. Adams (1854) rather than to Gray, 1847; it is not 
attributed in Burch's other works cited here. Ponder (1988, p. 130) stated '...I regret the 
necessity to abandon the almost universally used Rissooidea (Rissoacea) in favour of 
Truncatelloidea because of the requirements of ICZN Art. 36. This is not, in my 
opinion, a rule destined to maintain stabiHty.' Ponder & Waren (1988, p. 296) stated 
'The continued use of Rissooidea (as Rissoacea) by the majority of malacologists, 
including the authors, might argue in favour of having Truncatelloidea suppressed.' 

4. Starobogatov (1970, pp. 26, 32) and Golikov & Starobogatov (1975, p. 210) 
included truncatellidae and HYDROBiroAE in the superfamily truncatelloidea, 
and considered it equal in rank to rissooidea. In these classifications, the question of 
priority of rissooidea and truncatelloidea does not arise. 

5. Nordsieck (1972, p. 134; 1982, p. 63) used the superfamily hydrobioidea for 
truncatellidae, hydrobiidae and assimineidae H. & A. Adams, 1 856 (p. 314), giving 
it equal rank with the rissooidea. In this classification, truncatelloidea should be 
given priority over hydrobioidea. We have found only one author, Koroneos (1979, 
p. 6), who follows Nordsieck in placing truncatellidae in hydrobioidea. Nordsieck 
misspelled rissooidea as 'Rissoidea' (1972, pp. 138, 153; 1982, pp. viii, 73). Radoman 
independently introduced the superfamily hydrobioidea in 1973 (p. 4), but excluded 
TRUNCATELLIDAE (Radoman, 1983, p. 23) without stating its systematic position. 

6. The RISSOOIDEA is currently recognized as one of the largest superfamilies in 
the MoUusca, containing 2000 to 4000 species. Changing the superfamily name to 
TRUNCATELLOIDEA would aflFect about ten percent of the subclass Prosobranchia. The 
family truncatellidae contains fewer than 100 species (Clench & Turner, 1948). 

7. The RISSOOIDEA includes medically important groups of snails, in particular the 
POMATIOPSIDAE, some members of which transmit schistosomes, which cause schisto- 
somiasis, also called bilharziasis (reviewed by Davis, 1979, 1980). 

8. When Truncatella Risso, 1826 was placed on the Official List by Opinion 344 
(1955, pp. 315-316), its type species was cited as Truncatella laevigata Risso, 1826, by 
designation by Woodward, 1854. However, Woodward did not treat Truncatella in 
1854 but in 1851, as shown in the text of the Opinion (pp. 326, 340). Furthermore, 
Woodward (1851, p. 137) cited T. truncatula (Draparnaud, 1801, p. 115) as the type 
species of Truncatella, and did not mention Truncatella laevigata or T. costulata Risso, 
1826, the only two originally included species (Risso, p. 125). Woodward's designation 
is thus invalid. The next available designation is that by Lowe in 1855 (p. 217). Lowe 
cited T. truncatula (Draparnaud) as the type species of Truncatella, but included T. 
costulata and not T. laevigata in synonymy. This type designation is vahd according to 
Article 69a(v). This change in the type species does not affect the concept of the taxon 
Truncatella, as T. costulata Risso, 1826, T. laevigata Risso, 1826, and Cyclostoma 
truncatulum Draparnaud, 1801 are all regarded as junior subjective synonyms of Helix 
subcylindrica Linnaeus, 1767 (Opinion 344, pp. 326, 335). 

9. The type genus of rissoidae is Rissoa Desmarest, 1814 (p. 7). Freminville is often 
cited as the author of Rissoa, and Coan ( 1 964, p. 1 66) stated that Rissoa was introduced 
by Freminville in 1 8 1 3 as a genus without included species. However, the only two uses 



106 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



of Rissoa in 1813 are by Risso, who lists the genus in combination with several of 
Freminville's manuscript names (Risso, 1813a, p. 87; 1813b, p. 341). Risso did not 
provide a description of the genus or any of the included species, so all are nomina 
nuda. Desmarest (1814, p. 7) was the first to make Freminville's manuscript names 
available and must be regarded as the author of Rissoa. 

10. The type species of Rissoa was cited as 'Helix labiosd' by Gray ( 1 847, p. 1 52) and 
as 'Turbo cimex L.' by Herrmannsen (1848, p. 400), but neither of these is one of the 
originally included species. The first valid designation is that by Bucquoy, Dautzenberg 
& DoUfus (1884, p. 262) of Rissoa ventricosa Desmarest, 1814 (p. 8) (cf. Ponder, 1985, 
p. 21). 

11. The type species of Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 (1821a, p. 258) has been cited as 
Turbo ulvae Pennant by many authors (Stimpson 1865, p. 6), but this is not one of 
the originally included species. Hartmann (p. 258) included only Cyclostoma acutum 
Draparnaud, Hydrobia thermara and Hydrobia diaphana. The last two are nomina 
nuda, so Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 (p. 40) is the type species of Hydrobia 
by monotypy. Gray (1847, p. 151) was the first author to cite correctly the type species 
of Hydrobia. Hartmann also treated Hydrobia in a second work in 1 82 1 ( 1 82 1 b, pp. 47, 
58). This work cites (p. 58) the 1821a reference and so presumably was pubhshed later. 
In Hartmann (1821b), the species included in Hydrobia {acuta, vitrea and minuta) are 
either nomina nuda or are unidentifiable because of lack of indication. 

12. In Opinion 475 (1957), bithyniidae Gray, 1857 (pp. 16, 24) was placed on the 
Official List as having several months priority over BiTHYNnoAE Troschel, 1 857 (pp. vi, 
1 0 1 ). It was also stated (p. 3 1 5) that bithyniidae was usually regarded as a subfamily of 
HYDROBiiDAE Troschel, 1857 (pp. vi, 106). However, there is no evidence that Gray's 
work was published before 31 December 1857; it cannot have been published before 
September, 1857 according to the date of the preface (p. xi), which indicates when the 
preface was written, not when the work was published, contrary to the interpretation 
in the Opinion (p. 315). Receipt of Troschel's work prior to 30 October 1857 was 
reported in Monatsberichte der Kdniglichen Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu 
Berlin for 1857 (p. 467). Thus, Troschel, not Gray, should be considered the author 
of BITHYNIIDAE. Currently hydrobiidae and bithyniidae are not considered to be 
confamilial, so questions of priority do not arise. 

13. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that rissoidae Gray, 1847 and other family- 
group names based on Rissoa Desmarest, 1814 are to be given precedence 
over truncatellidae Gray, 1840 and other family-group names based on 
Truncatella Risso, 1826 whenever their type genera are placed within the same 
family-group taxon; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name 
rissoidae Gray, 1847 (type genus Rissoa Desmarest, 1814), with the endorse- 
ment that it and other family-group names based on Rissoa are to be given 
precedence over truncatellidae Gray, 1840 (type genus Truncatella Risso, 
1826) and other family-group names based on Truncatella whenever their type 
genera are placed within the same family-group taxon; 

(3) to add to the entry for truncatellidae Gray, 1840 on the Official List of 
Family-Group Names in Zoology the endorsement that it and other family- 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



107 



group names based on Truncatella Risso, 1826 are not to be given priority 
over RissoiDAE Gray, 1847 and other family-group names based on Rissoa 
Desmarest, 1814, whenever their type genera are placed within the same 
family-group taxon; 

(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name 
HYDROBnoAE Troschel, 1857 (type genus Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821); 

(5) to amend the entry for BiTHYNiroAE Gray, 1857 on the Official List of Family- 
Group Names in Zoology to give Troschel (1857) as the author of the name; 

(6) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: 
(a) Rissoa Desmarest, 1814, type species by subsequent designation by 

Bucquoy, Dautzenberg & DoUfus (1884), Rissoa ventricosa Desmarest, 
1814 (the type genus of rissoidae Gray, 1847); 
(h) Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821, type species by subsequent designation by 
Gray (1847), Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 (the type genus of 
HYDROBiiDAE Troschel, 1857); 

(7) to amend the entry for Truncatella Risso, 1826 on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology to state that the valid name of its type species is Helix 
subcylindrica Linnaeus, 1767 (a senior subjective synonym of Truncatella 
costulata Risso, 1826, designated by Lowe (1855)); 

(8) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) ventricosa Desmarest, 1814, as published in the binomen Rissoa ventricosa 
(specific name of the type species of Rissoa Desmarest, 1814); 

(b) acutum Draparnaud, 1 805, as published in the binomen Cyclostoma acutum 
(specific name of the type species of Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821); 

(9) to amend the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for sub- 
cylindrica. Helix, Linnaeus, 1767 to state that it is the valid name (as a senior 
subjective synonym of Truncatella costulata Risso, 1826, designated by Lowe 
(1855)) of the type species of Truncatella Risso, 1826; 

(10) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology the following names: 

(a) 'Freminville' Risso, 1813a (a nomen nudum); 

(b) Rissoa 'Freminville' Risso, 1 8 1 3b (a nomen nudum). 

References 

Adams, H. & Adams, A. 1 854-1 858. The Genera of Recent MoUusca; arranged according to their 

organization, vol. 2. 661 pp. Van Voorst, London. [Dates of issue of parts on p. 661]. 
Baker, H.B. 1956. Familial names for land operculates. Nautilus, 70: 28-31. 
Baker, H.B. 1960. Hydrobiidae or Truncatellidae? Nautilus, 74: 34-35. 

Baker, H.B. 1 964. Type land snails in the Academy of Natural Sciences ofPhiladelphia. Part III. 

Limnophile and thalassophile Pulmonata. Part IV. Land and freshwater Prosobranchia. 

Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 116: 149-193. 
Bieler, R. & Mikkelsen, P. M. 1988. Anatomy and reproductive biology of two western Atlantic 

species of Vitrinellidae, with a case of protandrous hermaphroditism in the Rissoacea. 

Nautilus, 102: 1-29. 

Binney, A. 1851. The terrestrial air-breathing mollusks of the United States, and the adjacent 
territories of North America, vol. 2. viii, 362 pp. Little & Brown, Boston. 

Bland, T. & Binney, W.G. 1872. On the lingual dentition of Blandiella, Geomelania and 
Amphibulima. American Journal of Conchology, 1: 185-186, pi. 17. 



108 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



Bucquoy, E., Dautzenberg, P. & Dollfus, G.-F. 1884. Les Mollusques marins du Roussillon. Vol. 1 
(Gastropodes), part 7, pp. 259-298, pis. 31-35. Balliere& Fils, Paris. 

Burch, J.B. 1980. A guide to the freshwater snails of the Philippines. Malacological Review, 13: 
121-143. 

Burch, J.B. 1982a. Freshwater Snails ( Mollusca: Gastropoda) of North America, vi, 294 pp. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. 
Burch, J.B. 1982b. North American freshwater snails. Walkerana, [1](4): 217-365. 
Burch, J.B. & Chung, P.-R. 1985. An outline of classification of the freshwater and land snails of 

Korea, with an annotated bibliography. Special Publication of the Mukaishima Marine 

Biological Station, 1985: 33-44. 
Clench, W.J. & Turner, R.D. 1948. A catalogue of the family Truncatellidae with notes and 

descriptions of new species. Occasional Papers on Mollusks, 1(13): 157-212. 
Coan, E. 1964. A proposed revision of the rissoacean families Rissoidae, Rissoinidae, and 

Cingulopsidae (Mollusca, Gastropoda). Veliger,6: 164-171. 
Davis, G.M. 1979. The origin and evolution of the gastropod family Pomatiopsidae, with emphasis 

on the Mekong River Triculinae. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Monograph 

20. vii, 120 pp. 

Davis, G.M. 1980. Snail hosts of Asian Schistosoma infecting man: evolution and coevolution. 

Pp. 195-238 in Bruce, J.I. & Sornmani, S. (Eds.), The Mekong Schistosome. Malacological 

Review, Supplement 2. xiv, 282 pp. 
Desmarest, A.G. 1814. Description des coquilles univalves du genre Rissoa de M. de Freminville. 

Bulletin des Sciences, par la Societe Philomatique de Paris, (3)1 : 7-9, pi. 1 , figs. 1-7. [Author 

as 'Desmarets'] 

Draparnaud, J.P.R. 1801. Tableau des Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France. 1 16 pp. 
Renaud, Montpellier. 

Draparnaud, J.P.R. 1805. Histoire Naturelle des Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France. 

[x] + viii, 164 pp. Plessan, Paris. 
Golikov, A.N. & Starobogatov, Y.I. 1975. Systematics of prosobranch gastropods. Malacologia, 

15: 185-232. 

Gray, J. E. 1840. [The zoological collections]. Pp. 18-152 in: Synopsis of the Contents of the 

British Museum. Ed. 42. 370, [vi] pp. Trustees, British Museum, London. 
Gray, J. E. 1 847. A list of the genera of Recent Mollusca, their synonyma and types. Proceedings 

of the Zoological Society of London, 15: 129-219. 
Gray, J. E. 1857. Manual of the land and fresh-water shells of the British Islands, xvi, 335 pp., 12 

pis. Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans & Roberts, London. 
Hartmann, J.D.W. 1821a. System der Erd- und Flussschnecken der Schweiz. Neue Alpina, 1: 

194-268. 

Hartmann, J.D.W. 1821b. System der Erd- und Stisswasser Gasteropoden Europa's. /a? Sturm, J. 

(Ed.), Deutschlands Fauna, vol. 6, part 5. 60 pp., 3 pis., 1 foldout table. Niirnberg. 
Haszprunar, G. 1988. A preliminary phylogenetic analysis of the streptoneurous gastropods. Pp. 

7-16 m Ponder, W. F. (Ed.), Prosobranch phylogeny. Malacological Review, Supplement 4. 

vi, 346 pp. 

Herrmannsen, A.N. 1847-1849. Indicts generum malacozoorum primordia, vol. 2. Pp. 1-352 
(1847), pp. 353^92 (1848), pp. 493-612 (1849). Fischeri, CasseUis. 

Houbrick, R. S. 1988. Cerithioidean phylogeny. Pp. 88-128 in Ponder, W. F. (Ed.), Prosobranch 
phylogeny. Malacological Review, Supplement 4. vi, 346 pp. 

Koroneos, J. 1979. Les Mollusques de la Grece. viii, 36 pp., 48 pis. Athenes. 

Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1(2). Pp. 533-1328 + [1-36]. Salvii, Hohniae. 

Lowe, R.T. 1855. Catalogus molluscorum pneumonatorum insularum Maderensium. Proceed- 
ings of the Zoological Society of London, 22: 161-218. 

Nordsieck, F. 1 972. Die europdischen Meeresschnecken ( Opisthobranchia mit Pyramidellidae; 
Rissoacea). xiii, 327 pp. Fischer, Stuttgart. 

Nordsieck, F. 1982. Die europdischen Meeres-Gehauseschnecken ( Prosobranchia), Ed. 2. xii, 539 
pp. Fischer, Stuttgart. 

Ponder, W.F. 1985. A review of the genera of the Rissoidae (Mollusca: Mesogastropoda: 
Rissoacea). Records of the Australian Museum, Supplement 4, 221 pp. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



109 



Ponder, W. F. 1988. The truncatelloidean ( = rissoacean) radiation — a preliminary phylogeny. 

Pp. 129-164 in Ponder, W. F. (Ed.), Prosobranch phylogeny. Malacological Review, 

Supplement 4. vi, 346 pp. 
Ponder, W. F. & Waren, A. 1988. Classification of the Caenogastropoda and Heterostropha — 

a list of the family-group names and higher taxa. Pp. 288-326 in Ponder, W. F. (Ed.), 

Prosobranch phylogeny. Malacological Review, Supplement 4. vi, 346 pp. 
Radoman, P. 1973. New classification of fresh and brackish water Prosobranchia from the 

Balkans and Asia Minor. Museum d'Histoire Naturelle de Beograd, Editions hors serie, 32: 

1-30. 

Radoman, P. 1983. Hydrobioidea — a superfamily of Prosobranchia (Gastropoda). Vol. 1 

(Systematics). Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Monographs, 547(57): 1-256. 
Risso, A. 1813a. Observations geologiques sur la presqu'ile de Saint-Hospice aux environs de 

Nice, departement des Alpes maritimes. Journal des Mines, 34(200): 81-98. 
Risso, A. 1813b. Observations geologiques sur la presqu'ile de St.-Hospice, departement des 

Alpes-Maritimes. Nouveau Bulletin des Sciences, par la Societe Philomatique de Paris, 3(71): 

339-342. 

Risso, A. 1826. Histoire Naturelle des principales productions de I'Europe Meridionale et particu- 
lierement de celles des environs de Nice et des Alpes Maritimes, vol. 4. vii, 439 pp., 12 pis. 
Levrault, Paris. 

Starobogatov, Y.I. 1970. Fauna molliuskov i zoogeograficheskoe raionirovanie kontinentalnykh 
vodoemov zemnogo shara. 372 pp. Akademiianauk SSR. Zoologicheskii Institut, Leningrad. 

Stimpson, W. 1865. Researches upon the Hydrobiinae and allied forms. Smithsonian Miscel- 
laneous collections, 201: 1-59. 

Thiele,J. \929. Handbuch der Systematischen Weichtierkunde.vol. 1(1) (Loricata. /Gastropoda), 
part I: Prosobranchia (Vorderkiemer). 376 pp. Fischer, Jena. 

Troschel, F.H. 1857. Das Gebiss der Schnecken zur Begriindung einer natiirlich Classification, 
vol. 1(2), pp. 73-1 12, pis. 5-8. Nicolaische Verlagsbuchhandlung, Berlin. 

Tryon, G.W. 1883. Structural and Systematic Conchology, vol. 2, 430 pp., pis. 23-91. Author, 
Philadelphia. 

Upatham, E.S., Sornmani, S., Kitikoon, V., Lohachit, C. & Burch, J.B. 1983. Identification key 

for the fresh- and brackish-water snails of Thailand. Malacological Review, 16: 107-134. 
Vayssiere, A. 1886. Etude sur I'organisation de la Truncatella truncatula (Draparnaud). Journal 

de Conchyliologie, 33: 253-288, pis. 12-13. 
Wenz, W. 1939. Gastropoda. Part 3: Prosobranchia. Pp. 481-720 in Schindewolf, O.H. (Ed.), 

Handbuch der Paldozoologie, vol. 6. viii, 720 pp. Borntraeger, Berlin. 
Woodward, S.P. \85\-lS54. A Manual of the Mollusca. Part 1 (1851), pp. 1-158, pis. 1-I2;part2 

(1854), pp. 159-330, pis. 13-24. Weale, London. 



110 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



Case 1643 

Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Anodonta anatina; Mollusca, 
Bivalvia): proposed designation of a neotype 

Peter B. Mordan 

The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. 
Fred. R. Woodward 

Natural History Department, Art Gallery and Museum, Kelvingrove, 
Glasgow G3 SAG, U.K. 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Anodonta anatina 
(Linnaeus, 1758) in its accustomed usage for a common species of European freshwater 
mussel by the designation of a neotype. This will also conserve the name Pseudanodonta 
com/7/a«a?<2 (Rossmassler, 1835). 



1. Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 706) was based on an unknown number of 
specimens and three references. On the same page Linnaeus erected the nominal species 
Mytilus cygneus, also for mussels from European freshwater habitats. 

2. Mytilus cygneus is the type species by monotypy of Anodonta Lamarck, 1799 
(p. 87) and the specific names cygnea and anatina have long been in usage in Anodonta. 
Both specific names were placed on the Official List of Specific Names by Opinion 
336 (March 1955), but that Opinion did not clarify the taxonomic meaning of either 
name. 

3. Ellis (1962, p. 18) commented that 'The European species of Anodonta have been 
much confused in the past, and the nomenclature is not yet stabilised. . . several writers. . . 
have united all the European Anodonta sensu stricto into a single 'fundamental species'. 
The studies of Bloomer (1937, 1938) [and later workers, e.g. Baagoe, Hvilsom & 
Pedersen (1986)] have clearly demonstrated the specific distinctness of Anodonta 
cygnea and A. anatina'. 

4. In general the shell of cygnea is roundly rectangular in outhne with the straight 
dorsal margin parallel to the ventral one; anterior margin broadly curved; height 
approximately the same anterior and posterior to the umbones, which are traversed by 
a well-marked series of concentric, sometimes bifurcating ridges (rugae), lying more- 
or-less parallel to the growth lines; colour tending to yellow or yellowish green, rarely 
rayed; valves relatively thin, generally of uniform thickness throughout, growth lines 
normally visible from inside when viewed against the Hght. Animal normally a rich 
orange-yellow colour. The shell of anatina tends to be roundly triangular in juveniles 
since the dorsal margin is not parallel to the ventral one; anterior margin comparatively 
narrow, sloping abruptly ventrally; height greatest posterior to umbones which are 
traversed by well-marked, transverse wavy rugae, which are often discontinuous and 
tend to cross the growth lines; colour green or olive green, tending to become darker 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



111 



posteriorly, often rayed; valves tending to be thicker, normally thickened antero- 
ventrally, growth lines not as apparent as in cygnea when viewed from inside against 
the light, especially anteriorly. Animal normally a cream-white colour. 

5. The collection of the Linnean Society of London contains a shell inscribed '218' 
and 'cygneus' in Linnaeus's handwriting (see Bloomer, 1938, pp. 39^0). This specimen 
was accepted as 'the type' (i.e. the lectotype) of A. cygnea by both Bloomer and Ellis 
(1962, p. 19), and previously Kennard & Woodward (1920, p. 215) had written the 
inscribed and numbered specimen... quite establishes... the identity [of A. cygnea]\ This 
specimen has been described by Bloomer (1938, pp. 36, 39^0, pi. 2, fig. 2) and ElHs 
(1962, p. 19), and is in accordance with modern usage of cygnea. 

6. No equally satisfactory type for Anodonta anatina exists. In 1964 Dr H. Lemche 
published (BZN 21: 432^34) an application for the designation of a neotype of Mytilus 
anatinus Linnaeus. Lemche's application and a comment on it by Prof P. Brinck (BZN 
22: 213-214) pointed out that the Linnaean specimens oi' anatinus'' in the collections of 
the Linnean Society of London and the Zoological Museum in Uppsala are examples 
of the species known as Pseudanodonta complanata (Rossmassler, 1835, p. 112) and not 
of Anodonta anatina auct. Hanley (1855, pp. 144—145) had previously noted this fact in 
his examination of the Linnean Society collection, pointing out that 'had the winged 
variety of cygnea, ordinarily termed A. anatina, been designated by our author 
[Linnaeus], he would scarcely have written in his own copy 'simiHs 28 {Unio pictorum) 
sed absque cardine". Hanley figured one of the Linnean Society 'anatina' ( — compla- 
nata) on pi. 2, fig. 1. Later workers have continued to ignore Hanley's findings, using 
A. anatina for the species under consideration. Brinck showed that Linnaeus's concept 
of 'anatinus' was undoubtedly composite and included both anatina and complanata 
of later authors. Lemche proposed as a neotype a specimen from an artificial moat in 
Copenhagen, while Brinck considered that a specimen from a natural lake would be 
more appropriate. Designation of a neotype would avoid transferring the name anatina 
to complanata auct. and hence from Anodonta to Pseudanodonta Bourguignat, 1877. 
Other workers commented on the case (BZN 21: 435; 22: 214-215), including A.E. ElHs 
who supported a neotype and who had been instrumental in having Mytilus anatinus 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names. Neotype designation was also supported 
by Bowden & Heppell (1968, p. 251) who said that transfer of the name anatina 'would 
be contrary to the interests of stability and would only add to the [taxonomic and 
nomenclatural] confusion'. 

7. In 1968-69 there was correspondence between the Secretary of the Commission, 
Brinck and Lemche, in which Lemche withdrew his suggested Danish neotype and 
Brinck said that the so-called 'types' of the supposedly synonymous species Anodonta 
piscinalis Nilsson, 1823 (p. 1 16) were probably not original material; it was suggested 
that a suitable Swedish lake specimen could be collected and be designated neotype of 
both anatina and piscinalis. For various reasons the case lapsed at this point. 

8. Subsequently six specimens were collected from Lake Dagstorp in Sweden, and 
were examined by Ellis. In a letter to the then Commission Secretary, he tentatively 
suggested that one of them might possibly be suitable as a neotype, the others being 
juvenile or not characteristic of anatina auct., but no neotype designation was 
pubHshed. 

9. By 1989 workers were under one of two impressions, both incorrect. Some 
thought that Lemche's application had been ratified, i.e. that a neotype of A. anatina 



112 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



had been designated, whilst others beheved that there existed some fundamental 
obstacle to the use of the name anatina in the accustomed sense. In August 1989 Dr 
G. Falkner (Munchen, Federal Republic of Germany) suggested at a Workshop 
meeting, at the Tenth International Malacological Congress in Tubingen, that anatina 
should replace complanata in Pseudanodonta, in agreement with the existing Linnaean 
specimens but contrary to Lemche's application (see para. 6) and to general usage. 
Falkner further suggested that Anodonta anatina auct., sometimes known as Anodonta 
piscinalis Nilsson, 1823, should be called Anodonta radiata (Miiller, 1774, p. 209), 
the types of which still exist in the Copenhagen Museum. Some members of the Work- 
shop provisionally supported these proposals, and in September 1989 Dr Falkner and 
Dr T. von Proschwitz (Goteborg, Sweden) asked the Executive Secretary of the 
Commission whether there were any doubts or obstacles relating to this course of 
action. 

10. The Secretary sent summaries of the case's history to Drs Falkner and von 
Proschwitz and to various workers, pointing out that the proposal in para. 9 would 
change both the used names Anodonta anatina and Pseudanodonta complanata and, 
much more seriously, would transfer the name anatina to the Pseudanodonta species 
(see para. 6). On the other hand, designation of a neotype for Anodonta anatina would 
conserve both names (and would leave both radiata and piscinalis available should this 
be taxonomically desirable). 

1 1 . Support for the designation of a neotype for Anodonta anatina was expressed by 
all those who replied: Dr A.E.Bogan {The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 
U.S.A.), Prof P. Brinck (University of Lund, Sweden), Mr D. Heppell (Royal Museum of 
Scotland, Edinburgh, U.K.), Dr T. von Proschwitz ( Naturhistoriska Museet, Goteborg, 
Sweden) and Mrs H.C.G. Ross (Ulster Museum, Belfast, U.K.). These correspondents 
included members of the Workshop mentioned in para. 9. 

12. Mr A.E. Ellis had doubted whether any of the Lake Dagstorp specimens 
(see para. 8) were adequately illustrative of the differences between the shells of 
A. cygnea and A. anatina; Mr D. Heppell wrote to the Commission Secretary 'the 
two species are actually far more morphologically distinct in some parts of their 
distribution (e.g. the British Isles) than in others... Thus whereas there would be no 
difficulty in picking a neotype from a British locahty which would unquestionably 
represent anatina, a specimen from a Scandinavian locality... is much more 
difficult'. 

13. We have examined the Lake Dagstorp specimen referred to in para. 8, and share 
the late Mr Ellis's reservations concerning its suitabiHty. We therefore designate as 
neotype of Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus, 1758 the shell from near Llangynidr, Brecon, 
Wales, U.K. figured by Bloomer (1938, pi. 5, fig. 11, and mentioned on p. 43) and cited 
by Ellis (1962, p. 22), which is preserved in The Natural History Museum, London 
(registration number 1989164). This specimen clearly shows the shell characteristics of 
M. anatinus as described in para. 4. Bloomer considered it to be typical (i.e. not a 
variety) of anatina, as did Ellis (1962). 

14. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type specimens for 
the nominal species Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus, 1758 and to confirm the neotype 
designation in para. 13 above; 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



113 



(2) to make endorsements to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as 
follows: 

(a) to add to the entry for Mytilus cygneus Linnaeus, 1758 the words 'as defined 
by the lectotype fixed by Bloomer (1938)'; 

(b) to add to the entry for Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus, 1758 the words 'as 
defined by the neotype designated by Mordan & Woodward (1990) [present 
reference]'. 

References 

Baagoe, P., Hvilsom, M.M. & Pedersen, B.V. 1986. The species rank of Anodonta anatina (L.) 
and A. cygnea (L.) with remarks on Pseudanodonta complanata (Rossmassler). Bivalvia: 
Unionidae. Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra Dansk Naturhistorisk Forening i Kjobenhavn. 
146: 75-83. 

Bloomer, H.H. 1937. On distinguishing the shell of Anodonta cygnea from A. anatina. Journal of 

Conchology, 20: 321-327. 
Bloomer, H.H. 1938. The British species of Anodonta Lamarck, and their varieties. Journal of 

Conchology, 21: 33^8. 

Bourguignat, J.R. 1877. Descriptions de deux nouveaux genres Algeriens,... des families et des 
genres de Mollusques... Bulletin de la Societe des Sciences Physiques et Naturelles de 
Toulouse, 3:49-101. 

Bowden, J. & Heppell, D. 1968. Revised list of British Mollusca. 2. Unionacea — Cardiacea. 

Journal of Conchology, 26: 237-272. 
Ellis, A.E. 1962. British freshwater bivalve molluscs. The Linnean Society of London Synopses of 

the British Fauna, vol. 13. 92pp. 
Hanley, S.C.T. 1855. Ipsa Linnaei Conchy Ha. The shells of Linnaeus, determined from his 

manuscripts and collection. 556 pp. Williams & Norgate, London. 
Kennard, A.S. & Woodward, B.B. 1920. On the Linnean species of non-marine Mollusca that are 

represented in the British fauna, with notes on the specimens of these and other British 

forms in the Linnean collections. Journal of the Linnean Society, Zoology, 34: 203-215. 
Lamarck, J.B. de. 1799. Prodrome d'une nouvelle classification des coquilles ... Memoires de la 

Societe d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris, I: 63-91. . „ , , 

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae Ed. 10, Vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 
MuUer, O.F. 1774. Vermium terrestrium et fluviatilium vol. 2, 224 pp. Heineck & Faber, 

Havniae & Lipsiae. 

Nilsson, S. 1823. Historia molluscorum sveciae terrestrium et fluviatilium breviter delineata. 124 
pp. Schuboth, Lund. 

Rossmassler, E.A. 1835. Diagnoses Conchyliorum terrestrium et fluviatilium, vol. 1, 134 pp. 
Arnold, Dresden & Leipzig. 



114 

Case 2762 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



Griffithides Portlock, 1843 (Trilobita): proposed confirmation of 
Griffithides longiceps Portlock, 1843 as the type species, so conserving 
Bollandia Reed, 1943 

Gerhard Hahn 

Institut fiir Geologie und Palaontologie, Philipps-Universitdt , Hans-Meerwein- 
Strasse, D-3550 Marburg, Fed. Rep. Germany 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the Carboniferous trilobite 
name Griffithides Portlock, 1 843 in its accustomed usage by setting aside an overlooked 
type species designation. In 1846 Oldham designated Asaphus globiceps Phillips, 1836 
as type of Griffithides, but the subsequent designation by Vogdes ( 1 890) of G. longiceps 
Portlock, 1843 is universally accepted. In 1943 Reed designated Asaphus globiceps as 
the type of his new subgenus Bollandia. It is proposed that Oldham's designation 
of Asaphus globiceps as type of Griffithides be set aside to conserve Griffithides and 
Bollandia in their accustomed usage. 



1. Portlock (1843, p. 310) estabUshed the genus Griffithides with four included 
species. These were, in page order: 

p. 3 10 Griffithides longiceps sp. nov. 
p. 3 1 1 Griffithides platyceps sp. nov. 
p. 3 1 1 Asaphus globiceps Phillips, 1836 (p. 240) 
p. 312 Griffithides longispinus sp. nov. 
Portlock did not designate a type species. 

2. Oldham (1846, p. 188) designated Asaphus globiceps as the type species of 
Griffithides, using the following words: 'In 1843, Portlock... established... two new 
genera, Griffithides and Phillipsia, of the former of which the Griffithides globiceps may 
be considered the typical species'. All subsequent workers on Carboniferous trilobites 
neglected Oldham's designation, with one exception. Weber (1937, p. 66) gave Asaphus 
globiceps as the type species of Griffithides, but gave no reason. He did not quote 
Oldham's work either on p. 66 or under 'literature'. 

3. Woodward (1883, pp. 27-28) in his fundamental work on British Carboniferous 
trilobites did not give a type species for Griffithides. He repeated (pp. 30-32) Oldham's 
description of Asaphus globiceps but omitted the sentence in which Oldham designated 
it as type species of Griffithides. 

4. Vogdes (1890, p. 116), referring to Griffithides, wrote: 'Type, Griffithides longiceps 
Portlock', but made no further comment. Vogdes Usted Oldham's 1846 work on p. 56 
of his bibliography but did not notice, or did not accept, that Oldham had designated 
Asaphus globiceps as the type species. 

5. Weller (1936, p. 706) revised Griffithides. He accepted G. longiceps as its type 
species with the following remark: 'by subsequent designation (Vogdes, 1890)'. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



115 



6. Reed (1943, p. 58) discussed the type species of Griffithides thus: 'It is generally 
acknowledged that Gr. longiceps, Portlock, should be regarded as the genotype, though 
Weber (1937, p. 66) apparently chooses Asaphus globiceps Phillips (1836, p. 240, pi. 
xxii, figs. 16-20), and puts Gr. longiceps as merely characterizing a group of the genus'. 
Reed accepted G. longiceps as the type species of Griffithides and (p. 62) designated 
Asaphus globiceps as the type species of his new subgenus Bollandia (p. 62) which he 
placed within the genus Permoproetus Toumansky, 1935. 

7. In the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Weller (1959, p. 399) gave 
G. longiceps as the type species of Griffithides and Asaphus globiceps as the type 
species of Bollandia. He diagnosed both genera as corresponding to those type species. 

8. Since 1959, all authors have followed the type species designations for Griffithides 
and Bollandia as given in the Treatise. For example, both Griffithides (with type species 
G. longiceps) and Bollandia (with type species Asaphus globiceps) have been used by 
Boucek & Pfibyl (1960, p. 30), Osmolska (1970, pp. 33, 108), Morris (1988, pp. 35, 102) 
and Tilsley (1988, pp. 163, 168). A representative list of nine more papers by five 
authors using Griffithides or Bollandia with these type species designations is held by the 
Commission Secretariat. 

9. To accept Oldham's designation of Asaphus globiceps as type species of 
Griffithides would have the following consequences: 

a) . becomes a junior objective synonym of Gnj^/ZzzWej'. 

b) . The name Griffithides must be transferred to the species currently attributed to 

Bollandia, and the species currently attributed to Griffithides are without a name. 
These consequences disturb the current usage of the nominal genera Griffithides 
and Bollandia and, in order to conserve these nominal genera in their current usage, 
I propose the setting aside of all designations of type species for Griffithides prior to 
that by Vogdes (1890). 

10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species for the 
nominal genus Griffithides Portlock, 1843 prior to that by Vogdes (1890) of 
Griffithides longiceps Portlock, 1843; 

(2) to place on the Oflflcial List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: 

(a) Bollandia Reed, 1943 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation 
Asaphus globiceps 1836; 

(b) Griffithides Portlock, 1843 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Vogdes (1890) Griffithides longiceps Portlock, 1843, as ruled 
in (1) above; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: 

(a) globiceps Phillips, 1836, as published in the binomen Asaphus globiceps 
(specific name of the type species of Bollandia Reed, 1943); 

(b) longiceps Portlock, 1843, as published in the binomen Griffithides longiceps 
(specific name of the type species of Griffithides Portlock, 1843). 

References 

Boucek, B. & Pfibyl, A, 1960. Revise trilobitu slovenskeho svrchniho karbonu. Revision der 
Trilobiten aus dem slowakischen Oberkarbon. Geologicke Prace, 20: 5^9. 



116 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



Morris, S.F. 1988. A review of British trilobites, including a synoptic revision of Salter's 

monograph. Palaeontographical Society {Monograph), 1-316. 
Oldham, J. 1 846. On Griffithides globiceps, Portlock, and some other Carboniferous Limestone 

fossils. Journal of the Geological Society of Dublin, 3(3): 188-194. 
Osmolska, H. 1970. Revision of non-cyrtosymbolinid trilobites from the Tournaisian-Namurian 

of Eurasia. Palaeontologia Polonica, 23: 1-165. 
Phillips, J. 1 836. Illustrations of the geology of Yorkshire: or, a description of the strata and organic 

remains: accompanied by a geological map, sections, and diagrams, and figures of the fossils. 

Part 2. The Mountain Limestone District, xx, 253 pp. Murray, London. 
Portlock, J.E. 1843. Report on the geology of the county of Londonderry, and of parts of Tyrone 

and Fermanagh, xxxi, 784 pp. Milliken, Dublin. 
Reed, F.R.C. 1943. The genera of British Carboniferous trilobites. Annals and Magazine of 

Natural History, (1 1)10: 54-65. 
Tilsley, J.W. 1988. New data on Carboniferous (Dinantian) trilobites from the Peak District, 

Derbyshire, England. Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society, 47: 163-176. 
Vogdes, A.W. 1890. A bibliography of Paleozoic Crustacea from 1698 to 1889 including a hst of 

North American species and a systematic arrangement of genera. Bulletin of the United 

States Geological Survey, 63: 1-177. 
Weber, V.N. 1937. Trilobites of the Carboniferous and Permian system of U.S.S.R. 1. 

Carboniferous trilobites. Paleontology of U.S.S.R. Monographs, 71: 1-160. [In Russian with 

English summary.] 

Weller, J.M. 1936. Carboniferous trilobite genera. Journal of Paleontology, 10: 704-714. 
Weller, J.M. 1959. phillipsiidae. Pp. 399^03 in Moore, R.C. (Ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate 

Paleontology , Part O, Arthropoda 1. Geological Society of America and University of 

Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas. 
Woodward, H. 1883. A monograph of the British Carboniferous trilobites. Part 1. 

Palaeontographical Society {Monograph), 1-38. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1 990 

Case2687 ■ IJ- '-j'^y'' ^'^f 

Longitarsus 5j/M/?/rjr/ Heikertinger, 1912 (Insecta, Coleoptera): 
proposed conservation of the specific name 

Lech Borowiec 

Department of Zoology, Agricultural University, Cybulskiego 20, 50-205 
Wroclaw , Poland 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the specific name of a 
flea beetle, Longitarsus symphyti Heikertinger, 1912, which is threatened by an unused 
senior synonym. 



1. In 1893 Weise (p. 1010) described a 'var. luctatof under Longitarsus aeruginosus . 
The name luctator has never been used by subsequent authors, but under Article 45g(ii) 
the name is to be treated as subspecific. 

2. Heikertinger (1912, p. 69) showed that the 'variety' described by Weise as luctator 
is the winged form of an independent species, which he named Longitarsus symphyti. 
This name has been used by all subsequent authors. A representative list of six 
important works on European chrysomelidae in which symphyti is used is held by 
the Secretariat. The species is widespread in west and central Europe, except the 
Mediterranean subregion. 

3. As the name luctator has not been used in entomological literature since its 
proposal for a "variety" and the name symphyti has gained wide usage for this species 
of flea beetle, it is desirable for the sake of stability that the older synonym be 
suppressed. 

4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to suppress the specific name luctator Weise, 1893, as pubHshed in the combi- 
nation Longitarsus aeruginosus var. luctator, for the purposes of the Principle of 
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name symphyti 
Heikertinger, 1912, as published in the binomen Longitarsus symphyti; 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology 
the name luctator Weise, 1893, as published in the combination Longitarsus 
aeruginosus var. luctator and as suppressed in (1) above. 

References 

Heikertinger, F. 1912. Skizzen zur Systematik und Nomenklatur der palaarktischen Halticinen, 

Entomologische Blatter, 8(3): 65-70. 
Weise, J. 1893. Chrysomelidae in Erichson, W.F. (Ed.), Natiirgeschiclae der Inselcten 

Deutschlands, vol. 6, part 1, xiv, pp. 961-1 161. 




118 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



Case 2738 

Acanthophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1824 (Osteichthyes, 
Cypriniformes): proposed conservation, and proposed designation of 
Cobitis kuhlii Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1846 as the type 
species 

Mary E. Burridge 

Royal Ontario Museum, Department of Ichthyology and Herpetology, 
100 Queen's Park, Toronto, Canada M5S 2C6 

Darrell J. Siebert 

Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, 
London. SW7 5 BD, U.K. 

Carl Ferraris, Jr. 

Department of Ichthyology and Herpetology, American Museum of Natural 
History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, N. Y. 10024, U.S.A. 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to designate Cobitis kuhlii Valenciennes in 
Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1846 as the type species of Acanthophthalmus van Hasselt in 
Temminck, 1824, a genus of small cobitid fishes from Southeast Asia, commonly 
known as the coolie loaches, in accordance with accustomed interpretation and usage. 
The generic name was first published (1823) as Acantophthalmus but this spelling has 
not been used and its suppression is proposed. 



1. In 1823 van Hasselt (p. 133) proposed the generic name Acantophthalmus for 
some of the loaches with an erectile suborbital spine. The genus included Cobitis taenia 
Linnaeus, 1758, but the three other species, mchxdxng fasciatus, were nomina nuda, as 
noted by Kottelat (1987, p. 371). C. taenia is thereby fixed as the type species of 
Acantophthalmus by monotypy; its inclusion makes Acantophthalmus an available 
name (Article 12b(5) of the Code). 

2. The work by van Hasselt consists of parts of letters sent from Java to Temminck 
at the Leiden museum, two of which contained several new fish names and which were 
pubhshed by the latter in 1823 after van Hasselt's death. A series of drawings sent by 
van Hasselt to Temminck, which were subsequently seen by Valenciennes, have never 
been pubhshed and are now presumed to have been lost (Kottelat, 1987, p. 368). A 
subsequent (1824a, b) French translation of the letters from the original Dutch con- 
tained many alterations in the text and 'corrections' in the spelling of several of the 
names which were probably made by Valenciennes (see Alfred, 1962, p. 80). For 
example, Acantophthalmus and Acantopsis, both genera of loaches, are two names 
spelled differently in the 1 823 and 1 824 versions. An 'h' was added to the ' Acant-' prefix 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



119 



in both names, to produce Acanthophthalmus and Acanthopsis (van Hasselt in 
Temminck, 1824b, pp. ?>16-'ill). The spellings Acanthophthalmus and Acanthopsis are 
unjustified emendations but, under Article 33b(iii), are available names. Cobitis taenia 
remains the type species of the nominal genus Acanthophthalmus. The French version 
of the second communication, in which the name Acanthophthalmus appeared, is 
unsigned; however, van Hasselt's name was published at the end of the first letter 
(1824a, p. 92), and the name Acanthophthalmus (1824) is ascribed to him. The 
spelling Acanthophthalmus was adopted by later authors. Valenciennes in Cuvier & 
Valenciennes (1846, pp. 25-26) attributed authorship of the name Acanthophthalmus to 
Kuhl and van Hasselt but clearly it should be ascribed to van Hasselt alone, and is 
correctly cited as van Hasselt in Temminck (Recommendation 5 IB of the Code). (The 
authorship and dates of publication of the various parts of Histoire Naturelle des 
Poissons by Cuvier & Valenciennes are set out in Opinion 580, December 1959). 

3. In the same 1 823 Dutch work, van Hasselt (p. 133) also proposed the new generic 
name Noemacheilus, with the single included species fasciatus. The binomen was 
repeated in the 1824 French translation with the spelhng unchanged but in both ver- 
sions it is a nomen nudum. Valenciennes (1846) described the species fasciatus, which 
lacks the suborbital spine, from a specimen and one of van Hasselt's drawings sent to 
him by Temminck. Valenciennes did not accept Noemacheilus as a taxonomically 
distinct genus, and placed all the loaches in Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758. 

4. Valenciennes (1846, p. 77) also provided a description for van Hasselt's species 
Acanthophthalmus fasciatus (see para. 1), and renamed it Cobitis kuhlii to avoid hom- 
onymy within Cobitis. Bleeker (1858, p. 304) Hsted and described the genera of loaches 
known to inhabit the 'Archipelagi Indici', including Acanthophthalmus (attributing the 
name to van Hasselt). In 1 863, Bleeker (p. 364) designated 'Acanthophthalmus fasciatus 
van Hasselt' (which he Hsted (p. 367) as ' = Cobitis kuhlii Valenciennes') as the type 
species of Acanthophthalmus, although, as pointed out in para. 1, Cobitis taenia 
Linnaeus, 1758 is the type species by monotypy. Bleeker excluded C. taenia from 
Acanthophthalmus. Bleeker's concept of the genus has been adopted by subsequent 
authors and is still current today, although it is illegitimate under the modern Code 
because of the exclusion of C. taenia. 

5. Also in 1863, Bleeker (pp. 362, 364) designated Cobitis taenia Linnaeus, 1758 as 
the type species of Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758 and recently the Commission validated this 
designation (Opinion 1500, June 1988). Acantophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 
1823 thus became a junior objective synonym of Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758 and it was 
so placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 
It follows that Acanthophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1824 is also a junior 
objective synonym of Cobitis. s 

6. Blyth (1860, p. 169) described a new genus, Pangio, for Cobitis cinnamomea 
McClelland, 1839 (p. 304), which McClelland had unnecessarily proposed as a replace- 
ment name for C. pangio Hamilton, 1822. C. cinnamonea is currently included among 
the coohe loaches. Following Bleeker ( 1 863, pp. 363, 364), Pangio has consistently been 
considered as a junior subjective synonym of Acanthophthalmus and has had no sub- 
sequent use (see Systematic Index of the Pisces sections of Zoological Record, 1864 to 
1989). It was adopted, however, by Kottelat in 1987 (p. 371), who drew attention to the 
considerable confusion that the loss of the generic name Acanthophthalmus as a junior 
objective synonym of Cobitis would cause. Acceptance of Pangio as the name for the 



120 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



coolie loaches would upset nearly 130 years of consistent usage of Acanthophthalmus 
in both the technical and popular literature. Several species are now included in the 
genus and the name Acanthophthalmus appears in catalogues and guides, including 
Nelson (1985, p. 127), Roberts (1989), Smith (1965, pp. 287, 299-301) and Weber & 
de Beaufort (1916, pp. 30-35), as well as taxonomic works. A representative list of 
14 references, ranging from 1868 to 1989, which demonstrate use of the name is held by 
the Commission Secretariat. 

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers: 

(a) to suppress the generic name Acantophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 
1823 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the 
Principle of Homonymy; 

(b) to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus 
Acanthophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1824 and to designate Cobitis 
kuhlii Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1 846 as the type species; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Acanthoph- 
thalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1824 (gender: masculine), type species by 
designation in ( l)(b) above Cobitis Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 
1846; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name kuhlii 
Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1846, as pubHshed in the binomen 
Cobitis kuhlii (specific name of the type species of Acanthophthalmus van Hasselt 
in Temminck, 1824); 

(4) to amend the entry on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names 
in Zoology for the name Acantophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1823, to 
note its suppression as in (l)(a) above. 

Acknowledgements 

R.M. Bailey, W.I. Follett, V.G. Springer and R. Winterbottom read previous versions 
of our manuscript, or discussed various issues contained in it. We gratefully acknowl- 
edge their comments and advice. This is not to be taken as their agreement with, or 
endorsement of, our solution to these problems. 

References 

Alfred, E. 1962. The Javanese Fishes described by Kuhl and van Hasselt. Bulletin of the National 

Museum, State of Singapore, 30: 80-88. 
Bleeker, P. 1 858. Nieuwe geslachten van Cobitinen. Natuurkundig Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsch- 

Indie, 16(5): 302-304. 

Bleeker, P. 1863. Sur les genres de la famille des Cobitioides. Nederlandsch Tijdschrift voor de 
Dierkunde, 1: 361-368. 

Blyth, E. 1860. Report on some fishes received chiefly from the Sitang River and its tributary 
streams, Tenasserim Provinces. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 29: 138-174. 

Hasselt, J.C. van. 1823. In Temminck, C.J. Uittreksel uit een' brief van den Heer J.C. van 
Hasselt, aan den Heer C.J. Temminck, geschreven uit Tjecande, Residentie Bantam, den 
29sten December 1 822. Algemeene Konst- en Letter-Bode, voor het jaar 1823, 2(35): 1 30-1 33. 

Hasselt, J.C. van. 1824a. In Temminck, C.J. Sur les poissons de Java. Extrait d'une premiere 
lettre du Dr J. -P. van Hasselt a M C.J. Temminck. (Algem. Konst. en Letterbode, mai 1823). 
Bulletin des Sciences Naturelles et de Geologic, 2 (Zoologie): 89-92. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



121 



Hasselt, J.C. van. 1 824b. In Temminck, C.J. Extrait d'une seconde lettre sur les poissons de Java, 

ecrite par M Van Hasselt a M C.J. Temminck, datee de Tjecande, residence de Bantam, 29 

decembre 1822. {Alg. Konst en Letter bode, 1823, aout, no. 35). Suite de la derniere, ecrite en 

octobre 1822. ( Voyez I'extrait de la premiere, dans le Bulletin de mai, no. 73). Bulletin des 

Sciences Naturelles et de Geologic, 2 (Zoologie): 374—377. 
Kottelat, M. 1987. Nomenclatural status of the fish names created by C.J. van Hasselt (1823) and 

of some cobitoid genera. Japanese Journal of Ichthyology, 33(4): 368-375. 
McClelland, J. 1839. Indian Cyprinidae. Asiatic Researches; or Transactions of the Society 

Instituted in Bengal, for Inquiring into the History . the Antiquities, the Arts and Sciences, and 

Literature of Asia, 19(2): 217-471 . 
Nelson, J.S. 1984. Fishes of the World. Ed. 2, xv, 523 pp. Wiley & Sons, New York. 
Roberts, T.R. 1989. The freshwater fishes of western Borneo (Kalimantan Barat, Indonesia). 

Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences, 14: 1-210. 
Smith, H.M. 1965. The freshwater fishes of Siam or Thailand. Ed. 2, 622 pp. Smithsonian 

Institution, Washington, D.C. (Reprinted from U.S. National Museum Bulletin, No. 188, 

1945). 

Valenciennes, A. 1846. Cyprinoides. Pp. 1-90 in Cuvier, G. & Valenciennes, A., Histoire 

Naturelle des Poissons, vol. 18. xix, 505 pp. Bertrand, Strasbourg. 
Weber, M. & Beaufort, L.F. de. 1916. The fishes of the Indo-Australian Archipelago, vol. 3 

(Ostariophysi: Cyprinoidea, Apodes, Synbranchi). 455 pp. Brill, Leiden. 
Zoological Record. 1864-1989. Pisces in: The Zoological Record, vols. 1-124. 



122 

Case 2693 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



Trionyx sinensis Wiegmann, 1834 (Reptilia, Testudines): proposed 
conservation of the specific name 

Robert G. Webb 

Department of Biological Sciences and Laboratory for Environmental Biology, 
University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas 79968-0519, U.S.A. 

Abstract. The purpose of this appHcation is to conserve the name Trionyx sinensis 
Wiegmann, 1834 for a turtle by the suppression of the senior subjective synonym 
Testudo rostrataJhunhtrg, 1787. 



1. Thunberg described the turtle Testudo rostrata in 1787. As noted by Lonnberg 
(1896, p. 33), Thunberg first mentioned the name Testudo rostrata with only brief 
comments in Latin (1787a, p. 21). Later in the same year he repeated the comments and 
gave a more elaborate description in Swedish (1787b, p. 179); this paper was published 
in German the following year (1788, p. 173). The comments in the first paper (1787a) 
are adequate to make the name available. 

2. Webb (1985, p. 85) described and figured the holotype of Testudo rostrata from 
the Linnaean Collection in the Zoological Museum of the University of Uppsala and 
outlined the history of the name. He demonstrated that Testudo rostrata is a senior 
synonym of Trionyx sinensis Wiegmann. Testudo rostrata has not been used as a valid 
name since Lonnberg (1896, p. 34) considered it to be a synonym of Trionyx swinhonis 
(correct original speUing swinhoei) Gray, 1 873. Trionyx or Rafetus swinhoei is regarded 
as a distinct species (Meylan & Webb, 1988). 

3. The name Trionyx ( Aspidonectes ) sinensis was made available by Wiegmann in 
the work Beitrdge zur Zoologie, gesammelt auf einer Reise um die Erde von Dr. F. J. F. 
Meyen (p. 189). This work is usually dated as pubUshed in 1835. However, Dr. R. L 
Crombie, Division of Amphibians and Reptiles, National Museum of Natural History, 
Washington, D.C., has made a detailed study of Wiegmann's original pubUcations and 
the incidental Uterature surrounding Meyen' s Reise and has estabhshed that it 
appeared in 1834. Thus, the name Trionyx sinensis Wiegmann was made available in 
1834. 

4. In Opinion 660 (1963, BZN 20: 187-190), the name Trionyx sinensis Wiegmann 
was conserved by suppression of the senior synonym Testudo semimembranacea 
Hermann, 1804 and was placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 
It is now necessary to conserve it against its senior subjective synonym Testudo 
rostrata. 

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name rostrata Thunberg, 1787, 
as published in the binomen Testudo rostrata, for the purposes of the Principle of 
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



123 



(2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology 
the name rostrata Thunberg, 1787, as published in the binomen Testudo rostrata, 
and as suppressed in (1) above. 

(3) to amend the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for the name 
sinensis Wiegmann, as published in the binomen Trionyx sinensis, to be taken 
from 1834 and not 1835. 



References 

Lonnberg, E. 1896. Linnean type-specimens of birds, reptiles, batrachians and fishes in the 
Zoological Museum of the R. University in Upsala. Bihang till Kongl.Svenska Vetenskaps- 
Akademiens Handlingar, 22(4) ( 1 ): 1-45. 

Meylan, P. A. & Webb, R. G. 1988. Rafetus swinhoei (Gray) 1873, a valid species ofliving soft- 
shelled turtle (Family Trionychidae) from China. Journal of Herpetology, 22: 118-1 19. 

Thunberg, C. P. 1787a. Pp. 19-32 in Museum Naturalium Academiae Upsaliensis, Part 2. Litteris 
Director Johan Edman, Upsaliae. 

Thunberg, C. P. 1787b. Beskrifning pa trenne skold-paddor. Kongl. Vetenskaps Academiens nya 
Handlingar, 8: 178-180. 

Thunberg, C. P. 1788. Beschreibung dreyer Schildkroten. Kdniglich-Schwedischen Akademie der 

Wissenschaften, Neue Abhandlungen, 8: 171-180. 
Webb, R. G. 1985. Taxonomic status of Testudo rostrata Thunberg, 1787 (Testudines, 

Trionychidae). Herpetologica, 41: 84-88. 
Wiegmann, A. F. A. 1 834. Beitrage zur Zoologie, gesammelt auf einer Reise um die Erde, von Dr. 

F. J. F. Meyen. Siebente Abhandlung. Amphibien. Nova Acta Physico-Medica Academiae 

Caesareae Leopoldino-Carolinae, 17: 183-268. 



124 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



Comment on the adoption of 'Protected Works' for purposes of zoological nomenclature 

(See BZN44: 79-85; 45: 45^7, 144, 145; 46: 9, 185-186) 

Barrel Frost 

Museum of Natural History, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045-2454, 
U.S.A. 

I do think that 'Protected Works' would be helpful in stabilizing nomenclature. 
I realize that in my position as compiler of Amphibian Species of the World this 
may sound self-serving, but I have been surprised at the number of times at pro- 
fessional meetings that nomenclature users (e.g. zoo and medical personnel, ecolo- 
gists, etc.) asked me why something along these Hnes was not done. Of course, they 
would rather the names of species never changed, but then they do not understand 
that we have a need to portray relationship, not just a simple naming convention. 

Maybe the solution is to adopt works with the proviso that proposals for 
excepting individual names be submitted to a special committee within the Com- 
mission (or appointed by the Commission) within five years. Protected Works 
would not obviate future petitions, but certainly would put an end to the endless 
exhumations of forgotten (and reasonably so) names from ancient literature. The 
status of family-group names is particularly knotty, as although these names are 
comparatively rare compared to all nomenclature they require an astounding 
amount of time to resolve (and even then inherent ambiguity in the Code makes 
many decisions questionable). 



Comments on the proposed conservation of the generic name Myriochele Maimgren, 
1867 (Annelida, Polychaeta) 

(Case 2554; see BZN 46: 229-232) 

(1) R. Thomas Becker 

Department of Geology, University of Southampton S09 5NH, U.K. 

One of the proposals in this application (BZN 46: 23 1 , para. 14) is the suppression of 
the almost unused polychaete generic name Clymenia 0rsted, 1844. It is unnecessary to 
do this, because this name is a junior homonym of Clymenia Munster, 1834 (p. 43), 
which is in use for a genus of Upper Devonian ammonoids and is the basis of family- 
group and order names. 



Additional reference 

Munster, G. 1834. Mittheilungen an Professor Brown gerichtet. Neues Jahrbuch fUr Mineralogie, 
Geognosie, Geologic und Petrefaktenkunde, 1834: 42-43. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



125 



A similar comment has been received from Prof Dr G. Hahn {Fachbereich 
Geowissenschaften, D-3550 Marburg ( Lahn ) , Fed. Rep. Germany). ::4^ > 



(2) Andrew Mackie , . ; 

National Museum of Wales, Cathay s Park, Cardiff CFl 3NP, Wales, U.K. 

Fredrik Pleijel 

Swedish Museum of Natural History, Box 50007, S-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden 

The aims of Nilsen & Hohhe's appHcation are to retain two junior subjective 
synonyms: Myriochele Malmgren, 1867 and oculata Zaks, 1923. While we believe this 
desirable and agree with the suppressions proposed, we would like to draw attention to 
an overlooked point. 

Nilsen & Holthe (BZN 46: 231, para. 12) regard Galathowenia Kirkegaard, 1959 
as a junior synonym of Myriochele. There is, however, no consensus on this matter. 
Galathowenia and Myriochele are regarded as distinct valid genera in several recent 
works (Kirkegaard, 1983; Blake, 1984; Imajima & Morita, 1987) not referred to in the 
application. Myriochele oculata is regarded by several authors (Blake & Dean, 1973; 
Kirkegaard, 1983) as a senior synonym of Galathowenia africana Kirkegaard, 1959, the 
type species of Galathowenia. 



Additional references /i f > .' ' 

Blake, J. A. 1984. Polychaeta Oweniidae from Antarctic Seas collected by the United 
States Antarctic Research Program. In Hutchings, P.A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 
First International Polychaete Conference. The Linnean Society of New South Wales, 
Sydney. 

Blake, J. A. & Dean, D. 1973. Polychaetous annelids collected by the R/V Hero from Baffin 
Island, Davis Strait, and West Greenland in 1968. Bulletin of the Southern Californian 
Academy of Sciences, 72(1): 31-39. 

Imajima, M. & Morita, Y. 1987. Oweniidae (Annelida, Polychaeta) from Japan. Bulletin of the 
National Science Museum, Tokyo, Ser. A, 13(3): 85-102. 

Kirkegaard, J.B. 1983. Bathyal benthic polychaetes from the N.E. Atlantic Ocean, S.W. of 
the British Isles. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 63(3): 
593-608. , - :.. . ■ 



(3) Susan Chambers 

National Museums of Scotland, Chambers Street, Edinburgh EHl IJF, U.K. 

I would like to support the conservation of the names Myriochele Malmgren, 1867 
and oculata Zaks, 1923 as proposed by Nilsen & Holthe (BZN 46: 229-232). 



126 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



Comments on the proposed precedence of Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901 (Arachnida, 
Araneae) over Rhechostica Simon, 1892 

(Case 2662; see BZN46: 165-166, 189-190) 

(1) Robert J. Raven 

Queensland Museum, P.O. Box 300, South Brisbane, 4101 Queensland, Australia 

Levi & Kraus present a case for the precedence of Aphonopelma over the older 
Rhechostica. The information given in their application is incomplete, however. 
Nobody naming any material from central America or southern North America 
ever considered the taxonomic status of Rhechostica until I did so (Raven, 1985). The 
family theraphosidae has not been revised, either in its entirety or in any region, 
including North America. A group so long left without revision becomes, as did the 
THERAPHOSIDAE, a nomenclatural and taxonomic nightmare. 

Three generic names (Eurypelma, Aphonopelma and Rhechostica) have been applied 
to one species, Eurypelma californicum Ausserer, 1871. Despite all activities of 
taxonomists, U.S. experimentalists in fact persist in using the binomen Eurypelma 
californicum for this common U.S. spider used in physiological and anatomical studies. 
That species has been used only once in the combination Aphonopelma californicum. 
Hence, the name Eurypelma Koch, 1850 still ranks higher in usage than any other. 
Most of those uses refer to what some prefer to call Aphonopelma. 

The name Rhechostica has not been forgotten by any cataloguer. The application by 
Levi & Kraus (1989) omits mention of Simon (1903) and Petrunkevitch (1928). The 
latest catalogue (Platnick, 1989) upholds the usage of Rhechostica. The most recent 
papers cited in the application are dated 1 986. However, Raven (1985) was published in 
December of 1985 and since then a number of authors (e.g. Bevington, 1989; Harvey, 
1989; Lowe, 1989; Schmidt, 1989; Smith, 1986, 1989) have cited Rhechostica as the 
senior synonym of Aphonopelma. 

Many in the scientific world and the pet trade who keep in touch with the Uterature 
concerning names of animals have adopted Rhechostica since my careful study of the 
type species of all mygalomorph genera where some representative, if not the types, 
existed. My change was a change from total confusion to stability. The alternative is yet 
another change simply for the sake of name-changing. 

No contention exists about the greater usage of Aphonopelma over Rhechostica in the 
past. However, Eurypelma is the most frequently used name for theraphosids in North 
America. Use of either Aphonopelma or Eurypelma is the result of incomplete studies. I 
consider that Rhechostica should be retained rather than Aphonopelma, so that the 
stability so far gained remains. 

Additional references 

Bevington, M. 1989. Theraphosides — some feeding observations. Journal of the British 

Tarantula Society, 4: 28-29. 
Harvey, D.A.D. 1989. The classification of mygalomorph spiders. Part 2. Nemesiidae, 

Theraphosidae and Paratropididae. Journal of the British Tarantula Society, 5: 21-26. 
Lowe, B. 1989. Moulting yearly? Journal of the British Tarantula Society, 4: 29. 
Petrunlievitch, A. 1928. Systema aranearum. Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts 

and Sciences, 29: 1-270. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



127 



Platnick, N.I. 1989. Advances in Spider Taxonomy 1981-1987: A supplement to Brignoli's A 
catalogue of the Araneae described between 1940 and 1981. 680 pp. Manchester University 
Press, Manchester. 

Raven, R.J. 1985. The spider infraorder Mygalomorphae (Araneae): cladistics and systematics. 

Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 182: 1-180. 
Schmidt, G. 1989. Vogelspinnen: Vorkommen, Lebensweise, Haltung und Zucht. mit Bestimm- 

ingsschliissel fiir alle Gattungen. 1 26 pp. Bliichel & Philler, Minden. 
Siraon,E. \902>. Histoire Naturelle des Araignees.2ndEd.,-p2Lr\.A.2>%\ pp. Roret, Paris. 
Smith, A.M. 1986. Species file: Rhechostica seemanni (Cambridge, 1897). Journal of the British 

Tarantula Society, 1: 22-26. 
Smith, A.M. 1989. The tarantula: classification and identification guide. Fitzgerald, London. 

(2) Support for the application by Levi & Kraus (BZN 46: 165-166) has been received 
from the following (see also BZN 46: 189-190): J.C. Cockendolpher {Texas Tech 
University, Lubbock, Texas 79409, U.S.A.), B.Y. Main {University of Western 
Australia, Perth, Western Australia 6009), D. Ubick {California Academy of Sciences, 
San Francisco, California 9411, U.S.A.) and T. Yaginuma {3-7-14 Harinakano, 
Higashisumiyoshi-ku, Osaka 546, Japan). T 



Comments on the proposed designation of Fonscolombia graminis Lichtenstein, 1877 as 
the type species of Fonscolombia Lichtenstein, 1877, with an additional proposal to 
suppress the names Tychea Koch, 1857 and J. graminis Koch, 1857 (Insecta, 
Homoptera) 

(Case 2695; see BZN 46: 1 19-122) ; : 

(1) Evelyna M. Danzig 

Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., Leningrad 199034, U.S.S.R. 

I support the proposal of Ben-Dov & Matile-Ferrero. The names Fonscolombia 
and F. graminis date from the reference 'Lichtenstein, 1877b' given in the application. 
This paper in the Entomologist's Monthly Magazine appeared before 11 July 1877, 
while the reference '1877a' was published on 5 September (see Annales de la Societe 
Entomologique de France, (5)7, bulletin bibliographique, pp. 35, 43). In a third paper 
published in 1 877 (late August), which is not mentioned in the application, Lichtenstein 
clearly stated (p. 491) that his graminis was distinct from Coccus radicumgraminis 
Fonscolombe, and he synonymized it with Tychea graminis Koch. 

Koch (1857, p. 296) established the genus Tychea with two new species, T. graminis 
(p. 298) and T. amycli (p. 300); the first was designated as type species by Kirkaldy 
(1906, p. 9). The original description of T. graminis was based on a mixture of an 
unidentifiable scale insect from the family pseudococcidae and an aphid, which 
according to Schouteden's (1906) interpretation is identical to Tetraneura ulmi 
(Linnaeus, 1758, p. 452) (see Morrison & Morrison, 1966, p. 80; Eastop & Hille 
Ris Lambers, 1976, p. 444). Neither the generic name Tychea nor the species name 
T. graminis are in use (see BZN 46: 120, para. 6) and they are a source of potential 
confusion. 



128 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



Accordingly, in addition to the proposals on BZN 46: 120-121, I ask the 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the names Tychea Koch, 1857 and graminis 
Koch, 1857, as published in the binomen Tychea graminis, for the purposes of 
the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 

(2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 
the name Tychea Koch, 1857, as suppressed in (1) above; 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology 
the name graminis Koch, 1857, as published in the binomen Tychea graminis and 
as suppressed in (1) above. 

[These supplementary proposals are supported by Dr Y. Ben-Dov]. 



Additional references 



Eastop, V.F. & Hille Ris Lambers, D. 1976. Survey of the World's aphids. 573 pp. Junk, The 
Hague. 

Kirkaldy, G.W. 1906. Catalogue of the genera of the hemipterous family Aphidae, with their 
typical species, together with a list of the species described as new from 1885 to 1905. The 
Canadian Entomologist, 38: 9-18. 

Koch, C.L. 1857. Pp. 275-335 in Die Pflanzenlduse . Aphiden (1854-1857). 335 pp. Lotzbeck, 
Numberg. 

Lichtenstein, J. 1877. Weitere Beitrage zur Geschichte der Wurzel-Lause. Homoptera antho- 

genetica. Stettiner entomologische Zeitung, 38: 489-492. 
Morrison, H. & Morrison, E.R. 1966. An annotated list of generic names of the scale insects. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publications, No. 1015, 206 pp. 
Schouteden, H. 1906. Catalogue des Aphides de Belgique. Memoires de la Societe entomologique 

deBelgique, 12: 189-246. 



(2) P.K.Tubbs 

Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

As first proposed, in the Entomologist's Monthly Magazine, 14: 35 (see Dr Danzig's 
comment above), the specific name graminis Lichtenstein, 1877 was formally an 
unjustified emendation (replacement name) of radicumgraminis Fonscolombe, 1834 
(see BZN 46: 119, para. 2). 

For procedural propriety, proposal (1) in BZN 46: 120, para. 12 should be replaced 
by: 

'(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the name graminis Lichtenstein, 1877, as 
published in the binomen Fonscolombia graminis, is to be treated as the specific 
name of a then new nominal species, now defined by the type specimen 
designated by Ben-Dov & Matile-Ferrero, 1989.' 

Acceptance of this proposal would fix the type species of Fonscolombia Lichtenstein, . 
1877 as F. graminis by monotypy (cf. proposal (2) on BZN 46: 121). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



129 



Comments on the valid name for the butterfly known as ''Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 
1905' or 'Co/iasaHsfra/w Verity, 1911' (Insecta,Lepidoptera) 

(Case 2617; see BZN 45: 29-32) ' V'- - • ' 

(1) L.B.Holthuis • - ::-)-^-*- 'v- • 

Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands 

The authors are incorrect in their interpretation (BZN 45: 30, para. 5) of the expres- 
sion 'a number of individuals within a species' in the Code definition of 'aberration': it 
applies to a population as to any other set of individuals. 

The names alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 and aus trails Verity, 1911 are both unavailable, 
and it is up to the authors to find the first available use of alfacariensis or australis. 

(2) E.J. Reissinger " - -. 
Kemnaterstrasse 311 1 , D-8950 Kaufbeuren, Fed. Rep. Germany , 

S. Wagener 

Hemdener Weg 19, D-4290 Bocholt, Fed. Rep. Germany 

(1) Ribbe (1905, p. 137) described a new 'Form' [sic] of Co/za^ /z>'fl/e' from Andalusia 
but unfortunately the 'ab.' in the name Colias hyale ab. alfacariensis formally renders 
the name unavailable under Article 45f(ii) of the Code, although 'Form' denotes a 
subspecies (Article 45g(ii)). 

(2) On the other hand, following German linguistic usage, it is quite clear that Ribbe 
was not describing an aberrant or seasonal morph, but stated clearly that the taxon was 
characteristic of a particular geographical area. In the contemporary literature the use 
of 'var.', 'form' and 'ab.' was not clearly differentiated. In 1906 (p. 134) and 1907 (p. 89) 
Ribbe himself mentioned 'Colias hyale v. alfacariensis', but unfortunately he did not 
refer to his 1905 description and thereby make the name available. 

(3) Verity's 1911 (p. 347; cf. BZN 45: 30, para. 6) description of the 'race' australis 
from Andalusia appeared in January 1911; in October his Index Systematique (p. 
xxxiv) explicitly showed that the word 'race' was to be interpreted as infrasubspecific 
(see BZN 45: 30, para. 8). Entirely formally, australis could be held to be available 
from January 1911. Whether available or not, it is now evident that alfacariensis and 
australis are synonyms for a distinct species of butterfly (Berger, 1944, 1945), known in 
English as Berger's Clouded Yellow. 

(4) Considered from their intentions, it is quite clear that Ribbe (1905) wanted to 
describe a 'Form' or 'Varietas' (subspecies) whereas Verity (191 1) was describing what 
in his view was an infrasubspecific taxon. 

(5) Verity ( 1 9 1 6, p. 99) described and gave the name calida to the Colias hyale of the 
summer generation (only) from Tuscany; from taxonomic considerations it is known 
that he was dealing with Colias alfacariensisjaustralis. In 1923 Verity & Querci (1923, 
p. 1 5) applied 'Colias hyale, L., race calida, Vrty.' to specimens of both generations, and 
the name calida Verity, 1916 is available under Article 45 of the Code (see Cockayne, 
1952, p. 166), or from Verity & Querci, 1923, under Article 10c. It would be 
destabiUzing to use this name for the entire species. 



130 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



(6) Bubacek (1924, p. 23) differentiated 'Colias hyale v. alfacariensis Ribbe' of 
Andalusia from the 'Nominatform'. Under Article 45g(ii) this can make alfacariensis 
Ribbe, 1905 available as from its original publication for a 'Form' even if the 'content 
of the work' [the use of 'ab.', but not the meaning] had given it infrasubspecific rank. 
Even if this were held not to be so, C. alfacariensis would be available under Article 10c 
as from Bubacek, 1924, but to cite this authorship and date would be wholly artificial. 

(7) We contend that Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905, C. australis Verity, 1911 
(January) and C. calida Verity, 1916 can be considered available under the Code. 

(8) As noted in BZN 45: 30, para. 9, lectotypes of both C. alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 
and C. australis Verity, 1911 have been designated, although that of the latter has 
disadvantages (the original specimens of Verity include C. hyale as well as C. australis; 
their origin is doubtful and they do not agree with Spanish specimens). 

(9) To assure a consensus in the use of the name for this taxon, we therefore request 
the Commission, using its plenary powers where necessary, to declare that: 

(1) the name alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905, as published in the combination Colias hyale 
ab. alfacariensis, is an available name; 

(2) the name australis Verity, 1911, published as a race of Colias hyale hyale, is not 
an available name; 

(3) the name calida Verity, 1916, as pubhshed in the combination Colias hyale 
calida, is an available name. 

Additional references 

Bubacek, O. 1924. Uber eine Lepidopterenausbeute aus Andalusien. Verhandlungen der 

Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 73: 22-24. 
Cockayne, E.A. 1952. Colias calida Verity: the correct name for the butterfly lately added to the 

British list. The Entomologist's Record and Journal of Variation, 64: 166-168. 
Ribbe, C. 1906. Eine Sammelreise nach Siid-Spanien. Insekten-Borse, Leipzig, 23: 134. 
Ribbe, C. 1907. Eine Sammelreise nach Siid-Spanien. Insekten-Borse, Leipzig, 24: 88-89. 
Verity, R. 1916. The British races of butterflies: their relationships and nomenclature. The 

Entomologist's Record and Journal of Variation, 28: 98-99. 
Verity, R. & Querci, O. 1923. Races and seasonal polymorphism of the Grypocera and of 

the Rhopalocera of peninsular Italy. The Entomologist 's Record and Journal of Variation, 35 

(supplement): 1-21. 

(3) O.Kudrna 

Karl-Strauss-Strasse 21, D-8740 Bad Neustadt-Salz, Fed. Rep. Germany 

I cannot see any evidence in this apphcation that I have not written about previously 
(Kudrna, 1 982). The name Colias alfacariensis Berger, 1 948 is the oldest available name 
for the species. I see no reason for bending the rules to attribute the authorship to the 
(supposed) original discoverer — after all, it was Berger (or rather Berger & Fountaine) 
who discovered the species. 

Reference 

Kudrna, O. 1982. On the nomenclature of Colias alfacariensis Berger, 1948 (Lepidoptera: 
Pieridae). Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera, 20: 103-1 10. j 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



131 



(4) W.G. Tremewan 

The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5 BD, U.K. • ■ ■ 

(1) I have studied the Uterature involved in this case. It is clear from Ribbe's 1905 
description of the nominal taxon alfacariensis that he was referring to a geographical 
population and not to an aberration. Ribbe's use of the terms 'ab.' and 'var.' were not 
consistent, and it is therefore my opinion that the availability of any nominal taxon 
described by him should be based on interpretation. The fact that he cited the name of 
his 'Form' alfacariensis with the prefix 'ab.' is, in my opinion, a mere technicality which 
should not render the name unavailable. 

(2) As Balleto & Kudrna (1986) and I (Tremewan, 1988) have pointed out, the 2000 
names proposed by Verity also cause many problems. It is an enormous and unjustified 
waste of time and effort to search the literature for citations which may have 'validated' 
a name now used in the species-group. In the particular case of the burnet moth genus 
Zygaena I suggested (p. 239) that the Commission might be asked to rule that the name 
of any nominal taxon now used at specific or subspecific rank should be ruled to be 
available from its original publication, even if it had been pubhshed as an addition to a 
trinomen. 

(3) The Preamble to the Code (p. 3) states 'The object of the Code is to promote 
stability and universahty in the scientific names of animals...'; therefore, it should be 
interpreted in such a manner as will do just this. UnHke 'nomenclaturists', most scien- 
tists use nomenclature as a tool to promote taxonomy and other sciences and do not 
regard it as a 'science' in itself. 

(4) I therefore fully support the application, and request that the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should use its plenary powers to rule that 
Co/?a5' flZ/iacar/ew^w Ribbe, 1905 is an available name. ; 

Additional references 

Balletto, E. & Kudrna, O. 1986. An annotated catalogue of the Burnets and Foresters 
(Lepidoptera: Zygaenidae) named by Roger Verity. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera, 
24: 226-249. 

Tremewan, W.G. 1988. The problem of infrasubspecific names in some groups of Lepidoptera. 

Nota Lepidopterologica, 10: 236-240. 

(5) P.K. Tubbs 

Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

For the last 40 years there has been confusion about the valid name for this butterfly. 
With a few exceptions (see BZN 45: 29, para. 2 and the above comment by Dr O. 
Kudrna) it has been referred to as either Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 or C. australis 
Verity, 1911, with australis having been used perhaps slightly more often; Reissinger's 
recent checklist (1989, pp. 164-166, 181) uses alfacariensis. There is no doubt that both 
names refer to the taxon which was described as a full species by Berger (1945, p. 33), 
who wrote that "Colias alfacariensis ribbe connue jusqu'a present sous le nom de Colias 
hyale L. race calida vty., nouvelle pour la science, est une bonne espece... Le nom 

alfacariensis ribbe etant plus ancien que celui de calida vty. doit designer la nouvelle 



132 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



espece'. Under Article 10c the name alfacariensis Berger, 1945 (rather than 1948, as 
proposed by Dr Kudrna) is available, but probably not valid for reasons of priority. 
Five years later, having been advised (but on mistaken grounds; see BZN 45: 30, para. 
7) by F. Hemming that alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 was unavailable, Berger adopted 
australis Verity, 1911; unfortunately this name also suffers from the drawbacks 
discussed in the application and the comments above, and the subsequent 
confusion began. 

It is high time that this situation, which is entirely a matter of nomenclatural niceties, 
is resolved. For reasons of both early date and usage it seems extremely desirable that 
either alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 or australis Verity, 1911 should be adopted as the 
nomenclaturally valid name; any other choice (for example, calida Verity, 1916 or 
Verity & Querci, 1923; alfacariensis Bubacek, 1924 or Berger, 1945) would introduce 
fresh argument and instability. 

The original application (BZN 45: 29-32) did not explicitly ask the Commission to 
set aside the Code's provisions in this case. This is necessary to fix the status of either 
alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 or australis Verity, 1911, and I propose that the Commission 
should use its plenary powers to rule that one or the other of these two names is to be 
deemed available. 

Additional reference 

Reissinger, E.J. 1989. Checkliste Pieridae duponchel, 1835 (Lepidoptera) der West- 
palaearktis (Europa, Nordwestafrika, Kaukasus, Kleinasien). Atalanta, 20: 149-185. 



Comments on the proposed conservation of heraclei as the correct spelling for the 
specific name of Musca heraclii Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Diptera) 

(Case 2719; see BZN 46: 252-254) 

(1) F. Christian Thompson 

Systematic Entomology Laboratory , U.S.D.A., Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A. 

I oppose this application by White & Seymour. The application contains a number of 
errors: 

(a) The original spelling has been used by other authors in addition to Linnaeus (for 
example, Miiller, 1776, p. 173). 

(b) Musca heraclei Fabricius, 1794 is not a subsequent use of Musca heraclii 
Linnaeus but a new and independent proposal for another species of fruit fly, 
now known as Tephritis postica (Loew, 1844). 

(c) While 'heracleV is the correct genitive of Heracleum, the plant genus, 'heraclii' is 
also a correct genitive. Harper's Latin Dictionary (1888 edition) includes two 
alternative spellings of the same Latin words referring to either the city Heraclea 
(Heraclea or Heraclia) or to the personage Hercules (Heracleus or Heraclius). As 
there is no evidence of what Linnaeus based his name on, I would not question 
Linnaeus' s Latin derivation. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



133 



(d) If one does want to argue that Linnaeus incorrectly derived his name, then 
Loew's emendation ( 1 844, p. 323) is vaUd. 

(e) The first use of the spelhng heraclei for Musca heraclii Linnaeus was by de Villers 
(1789, p. 507; see also Gmelin, 1790, p. 2858). 

The difference in spelhng between heraclii and heraclei is minimal. Hence, the 
standardization on the correct original spelling {heraclii) is unlikely to cause confusion. 
For economically important species which have common names, such as this species 
(celery fly), changes in scientific nomenclature cause virtually no confusion. For 
example, the cabbage root maggot, an important pest, was known for many years as 
Anthomyia brassicae Wiedemann (or Bouche). Pont (1981) showed that the proper 
specific name for the species was radicum Linnaeus. This radical change caused no 
confusion to at least the American community of economic entomologists as they 
use the common name exclusively. When needing to cite the scientific name, these 
entomologists merely use whatever is given in the most recent Common Names of 
Insects and Related Organisms list that is maintained by the Entomological Society of 
America. I believe the confusion caused by change in the spelling of heraclii will be even 
less and, hence, the proposed change is unjustified. ; ; 

Additional references 

Gmelin, J.F. 1790. Caroli a Linne, Systema Naturae... Ed. 13, vol. 1: Regnum Animate, pt. 5 

(Insecta, pp. 2225-3020). Lipsiae. 
Loew, H. 1844. Kritische Untersuchung der europaischen Arten des genus Trypeta Meig. 

Zeitschrift fit Entomologie ( Germar), 5: 312-437. 
Miiller, O.F. 1776. Zoologiae Datiicae prodromus, seu Animalium Daniae et Norvegiae indige- 

narum characteres, nomina, et synonyma imprimis populariwn. xxxii + 274 pp. Havniae. 
Pont, A. 1981. The Linnaean species of the families Fanniidae, Anthomyiidae and Muscidae 

(Insecta, Diptera). BiologicalJournal of tlie Linnean Society, 15: 165-175. 
Villers, C.J. de. 1789. Caroli Linnaei entomologia, faunae suecicae descriptionibus..., vol. 3. 

ii + 657 pp., 4 pis. Lugduni. 

(2) Ian M.White 

CAB International Institute of Entomology , 56 Queen 's Gate, London SW7 5JR, U.K. 
I should Hke to reply to Thompson's above remarks. 

(a) Seymour and I did miss the fact that the spelling heraclii had been used by a few 
18th century authors; Thompson has been unable to find any 20th, or even 19th, 
century authors who used any spelling other than heraclei, and the purpose of 
this case is to reject that purely 18th century spelling of this pest of celery. 

(b) Fabricius (1794) does not make it clear that his Musca heraclei is a new species, 
although he does not mention Linnaeus. Fabricius redescribed other Linnaean 
species, and it is likely that he was doing so in this case and failed to mention 
Linnaeus; there is no proof either way. This doubt over what Fabricius was 
describing was noted in the application (BZN 46: 252, para. 2). The Fabricius 
collection was not consulted as this appears to be a peripheral issue to the 
estabhshed use of the non-Linnaean spelhng. Thompson notes that the heraclei 
of Fabricius is now interpreted as Tephritis postica (Loew), a species associated 
with Onopordon (Asteraceae or Compositae). Fabricius named several tephritids 



134 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



after plants which are known to be hosts of monophagous or oligophagous species. 
Each of these tephritids has subsequently been interpreted as a species that attacks a 
different plant family to the plant genus from which the Fabrician name clearly derives. 
Fabricius described a Musca onopordinis, now interpreted as a synonym of Euleia 
heraclei (Linnaeus), which attacks Heracleum and related genera; conversely, his 
Musca heraclei is now interpreted as T. postica which attacks Onopordon. The descrip- 
tion of M. onopordinis even refers to 'Carduis', presumably meaning a thistle such as 
Onopordon sp. This apparent reversal of Fabrician names suggests that even when 
specimens exist in the Fabricius collection it is likely that they have been placed against 
the wrong names by some post-Fabricius worker (this is known to have happened to 
the Linnaean collection). As there is no way of proving what Fabricius was describing, 
the simplest course is to assume that Fabricius was re-describing the Linnaean heraclii 
but with a modified spelling. 

(c) There is evidence of the Latin derivation used by Linnaeus, as he clearly states 
'Habitat in foliis, Heraclii; subcutanea\ meaning below the leaf cuticle of 
'Heraclii'. Although it is possible for 'Heraclii' to refer to the city Herculea or to 
the personage of Hercules, they are unlikely candidates for leaf mining! 

(d) We have not argued that Linnaeus incorrectly derived his name, only that the 
rule of original speUing being correct be set aside in the interest of stability. 

(e) We accept that some other 1 8th century workers used the spelling heraclei before 
Fabricius (1794), in which case we need not worry about what Fabricius meant 
by heraclei. 

The difference between the spelling heraclii and heraclei is minimal and the issue need 
not have been raised were it not for the confusion being caused by a recent catalogue 
which introduced an erroneous speUing 'heracleif. Thompson refers to another econ- 
omically important species in which a complete change of specific name occurred; we 
suspect that such a complete change of name is more readily accepted by applied 
entomologists than a small change in spelling. 

We do not wish to change our application as a result of Thompson's comments. 



Comments on the proposed conservation of Physcus Howard, 1895 (Insecta, 
Hymenoptera) by the suppression of Coccobius Ratzeburg, 1852 

(Case 2629; see BZN 45: 288-29 1 ; 46: 1 32-1 34) 

(1) Gary Gibson & John Huber 

Biosystematics Research Centre, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Ontario KIA 0C6, 
Canada 

We are writing to support the comment by LaSalle & Boucek (BZN 46: 132-134) 
opposing the suppression of Coccobius Ratzeburg, 1852 in favour of Physcus Howard, 
1895, as requested by Rosen, Rivnay & Viggiani (BZN 45: 288-291). 

We can add little to the logical argument presented by LaSalle & Boucek for reten- 
tion of Coccobius. We feel strongly that nomenclatural stability and universality are 
achieved through the Principle of Priority based on sound taxonomic reasoning an 
compUance with the rules estabhshed in the Code. Gahan & Fagan (1923) validl 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



135 



designated Coccobius annulicornis Ratzeburg as the type species of Coccobius, and the 
designation of a neotype for C. annulicornis by LaSalle & Boucek definitively clarifies 
the application of this name. Suppression of Coccobius in favour of Physcus would 
disrupt stabiUty in nomenclature that has been achieved since Hayat (1983). For these 
reasons we do not support the application of Rosen, Rivnay & Viggiani to suppress 
Coccobius. 

(2) Gennaro Viggiani 

Dipartimento di Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria, Universita degli Studi di Napoli, Via 
Universitd 100, 80055 Portici, Italy 

Here are my reactions to the comment by LaSalle & Boucek (BZN 46: 1 32-1 34). The 
above comment by Gibson & Huber adds nothing new to the case. 

1. LaSalle & Boucek say that the proposed conservation of Physcus Howard, 1895 
(BZN 45: 288-291) 'would do more to disrupt stability than to promote it'. This is not 
true. Hayat (1984) stated 'The genus Coccobius Ratzeburg (till recently as Physcus; but 
see Hayat, 1983) contains 58 species'. Coccobius Ratzeburg, 1852 was absolutely 
ignored in taxonomy and in appHed entomology until 1983. Boucek had himself used 
Physcus and not Coccobius. 

2. The Principle of Priority 'is to be used to promote stability and is not intended to 
be used to upset a long accepted name in its accustomed meaning through the introduc- 
tion of an unused name that is its senior synonym' (Article 23b of the Code). The 
proposal by LaSalle & Boucek would cause just such an upset. 

3. All the arguments by LaSalle & Boucek in favour of the resurrection of Coccobius 
are based on 'personal communications' and on a specimen in the Natural History 
Museum, London, from Novitzky's collection said to have been compared long ago 
with the type of Coccobius annulicornis. When Hayat (1983) studied this specimen it 
'was on a card with the antennae missing and the head partly eaten by psocids'. Now, 
according to LaSalle & Boucek, the same specimen 'fortunately' is accompanied by one 
of the antennae. 

4. The subsequent action by LaSalle & Boucek to sink in synonymy (just in their 
comment) a well-known species, Physcus testaceus Masi, 1910, treated in a great 
number of papers, demonstrates how they produce 'stability'. They use the rather satis- 
factory description of a well-known species to recognize in a specimen, or rather the 
remains of a specimen, a senior synonym. They do not give a redescription, but simply 
replace Physcus testaceus with a newly defined 'Coccobius annulicornis Ratzeburg'. The 
purported designation by LaSalle & Boucek of a 'neotype' of Coccobius annulicornis is 
completely contrary to Article 75b of the Code. 

5. LaSalle & Boucek say (BZN 46: 133, para. lOj'AsthenameCocco^/w^isshownto 
have both its usage and its identity established, and as Rosen et al. have not provided 
sufficient evidence to support their proposal to suppress Coccobius in favour of 
Physcus. ..\ This gives a completely false impression. LaSalle & Boucek (para. 8) give 
only five references for the use of Coccobius, three of which are by Hayat. On the other 
hand, Physcus has been used by many aphelinid workers, including Annecke, Compere, 
De Bach, De Santis, Ferriere, Flanders, Howard, Masi, Nikol'skaya, Silvestri and 
Yasnosh. [The Commission Secretariat has a list of 85 references besides those cited in 
the application.] 



136 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



6. I invite those interested in the aphelinidae and in biological control to give their 
views to the Commission. 

(3) David Rosen 

Faculty of Agriculture , The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot 76-100, P.O. Box 
12, Israel 

I should like to reply to the objection to the conservation of Physcus Howard, 1895, 
as proposed by Rivnay, Viggiani and myself, which has been made by LaSalle & 
Boucek (BZN 46: 132-134). 

LaSalle & Boucek 'contend that the suppression of the name Coccobius would 
disrupt stability rather than promote it'. I am afraid that this statement is entirely 
incomprehensible to me. All they tell us is that a damaged specimen has been found, 
that one of its missing antennae has been located, and that 'a reasonable assumption' 
can be made as to its identity, and that this, in the absence of type material, should be 
regarded as sufficient grounds for synonymizing the well-known generic name Physcus 
under Coccobius. They conveniently ignore the fact, clearly demonstrated in our appli- 
cation, that the name Coccobius was misinterpreted — and unused — for nearly a 
century and a half, whereas the name Physcus was clearly interpreted and in constant 
use for most of that period. Even if Coccobius is unequivocally recognized as a senior 
synonym of Physcus, how on earth would its resurrection promote nomenclatural 
stability? 

LaSalle & Boucek claim that the name Coccobius 'has been used in systematic and 
biological control Uterature', but in support of this statement they cite only five publi- 
cations, all of them subsequent to Hayat's resurrection of Coccobius, and three of 
them by Hayat himself. Where was this name from, say, 1 895 to 1 983? We, on the other 
hand, have presented the Commission Secretariat with a partial list including scores 
of publications — some biological, many systematic, several dealing with biological 
control — that have all used the name Physcus, and this list can be easily doubled. 

LaSalle & Boucek go on to state that 'Hayat's (1983) work in which he re-established 
the name Coccobius is the first modern treatment of the aphelestidae...'. With all due 
respect, I have to disagree. Hayat's is a fine paper, but one cannot simply dismiss 
the earher, excellent revisional work of De Santis, Nikol'skaya, Yasnosh, Compere, 
Ferriere and others, all of whom have used the generic name Physcusl 

LaSalle & Boucek are, in effect, trying to take us back to a time when the Principle of 
Priority reigned supreme and the favorite pastime of some taxonomists was to unearth 
long-forgotten senior synonyms. The present Article 23b, emphasizing stability, was 
adopted for precisely this type of situation! 

Of course, when a case is so ambiguous, one can always resort to a gimmick: Take the 
damaged specimen in question and designate it as neotype. This unnecessary proposal 
is not justified by the evidence, does not solve any systematic or nomenclatural 
problem, and does not serve any purpose but for winning an argument. For the sake 
of nomenclatural stabiUty, the Commission is hereby requested to reject it and let 
Coccobius rest in peace. 

Finally, a word about 'sentimentaUty'. This is not the first time that I have been 
accused of advocating 'the maintenance of previously used names for sentimental 
reasons'. Why should the conservation of a well-known name be considered more 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



137 



'sentimental' than the resurrection of an old, forgotten name? Let us leave sentimen- 
tality aside and concentrate on the rational, scientific aspects of the problem. 

The Commission has acted in favor of stabihty in many similar cases. To cite just two 
examples with which I have been personally familiar, the generic name Sceptrophorus 
Foerster, 1856 was suppressed in favor of Microterys Thomson, [1876] (Opinion 1110) 
and the specific name albidus Westwood, 1837 was suppressed in favor of mytilaspidis 
Le Baron, 1870 (Opinion 1405), although in both cases the types of the senior 
synonyms were available. I do hope that a similar decision will be made in this case. , 

In conclusion, I can only repeat what I wrote several years ago on a similar case 
(1985, BZN 42; 215): 'Systematists, myself included, would of course not find it 
difficult to adapt [to the name change]. . . However, numerous field biologists all over the 
world, who do not read taxonomic papers unless they are forced to do so, would be 
confused... So, it is not out of sentimentality that I favor the junior synonym in this 
case. It is only out of my concern for the users of systematic information, and for the 
respect that they may or may not have for the science and practice of systematics, that I 
recommend the suppression of [the senior synonym]... In my opinion the careless 
replacement of well-estabUshed names by long-forgotten senior synonyms would only 
serve to deepen the unfortunate rift between field biologists and some systematists. 
For the sake of systematics, let us not alienate those who depend on us for a stable 
nomenclature'. " ' ' , 



(4) JohnLaSalle 

CAB International Institute of Entomology , 56 Queen 's Gate, London SW7 5 JR. U.K. 

Our comment (BZN 46: 132-134) is not intended to alienate or cause undue con- 
fusion with field biologists, biological control workers, or other non-systematists who 
rely on systematics for the provision of stable names (nor do we wish to alienate the 
authors of the proposal). However, systematics has rules which provide stability: these 
rules should be used where appHcable, and stability will best be served when priority is 
overturned only in cases where the evidence presented is both overwhelming and timely 
(by waiting several years after the recognition of Coccobius before approaching the 
Commission, and thereby giving the name Coccobius time to become established in the 
literature, the authors have removed whatever valid arguments they might once have 
had). 

This case is nothing more than a question of usage versus priority. The Code allows 
for the suppression of an unused senior synonym only in cases where the use of that 
name rather than a well accepted junior synonym would disturb stability or cause 
undue confusion. Even if one assumes that Coccobius is an unused name, which it no 
longer is, this case does not rest on impassioned pleas or lists of works using the name 
Physcus in the past, but simply on the assumption that use of Coccobius would disturb 
stability and cause confusion. Such an assumption is contradicted by facts: since 
Coccobius was recognized in 1983, far more references have used the name Coccobius 
than Physcus. 

I have deposited with the Commission Secretariat a list of 24 references published 
since 1983 and using the name Coccobius in its currently recognized sense. This list 
contains works by over 30 authors from nine countries, and includes catalogues, keys, 
studies on biological control, biology, systematics, a data base of natural enemies, and 



138 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



a list of preferred names of economic insects. It appears to me that there is no question 
here; at the present time both priority and usage favor Coccobius. 



Comment on the need for stability in fish family-group names 

(See BZN47: 97-100) 

Nigel Merrett 

The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. 

I fully endorse Mr Wheeler's view that changes to family-group names for purely 
grammatical reasons, such as those proposed by Steyskal ( 1 980), may have unfortunate 
and wide-ranging implications for stability. I support his call for the establishment of a 
specialist committee on fish nomenclature to give guidance on the most pragmatic 
solution to such proposals. 



Comments on the proposed confirmation of Muraena helena Linnaeus, 1758 as the type 
species of Muraena Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes, Anguilliformes), so conserving 
Anguilla 

(Case 1 1 73; see BZN 46: 259-26 1 ) 
(1) Alwyne Wheeler 

Epping Forest Conservation Centre, High Beach, Loughton, Essex IGIO 4AF, U.K. 

The generic name Anguilla dates not from Shaw (1803, p. 15) as stated, but from 
Schrank (1798, pp. 304, 307). This fact has been cited by authors including Blache et al. 
(1973, pp. 220-222). The type species by monotypy is Muraena anguilla Linnaeus, 1 758. 

The use of the specific name vulgaris by Shaw was clearly (not 'possibly' as in the 
application) to avoid tautonymy following the Linnaean precepts of taxonomy which 
were later encoded in the Strickland Code of Nomenclature in Zoology (Strickland, 
1842). Although the avoidance of tautonymy was not encoded until that date it was 
shunned by adherents of the Linnaean system of nomenclature in accordance with the 
aphorisms set out in Linnaeus's Critica Botanica (see Hort, 1938). For discussion of the 
nomenclature of fishes with the specific name vulgaris see Wheeler (1988). 

References 

Blache, J., Bauchot, M.-L. & Saldanha, L, 1973. In Hureau, J.C. & Monod, T. (Eds.), Check-list 
of the fishes of the north-eastern Atlantic and of the Mediterranean, vol. 1, xxii, 683 pp. 
UNESCO, Paris. 

Hort, A. 1938. The 'Critica Botanica' of Linnaeus. 239 pp. The Ray Society, London. 

Schrank, F. von P. 1798. Fauna Boica, vol. 1, part 2. xii, 720 pp. Niirnberg. 

Strickland, H.E. 1842. Report of a Committee appointed 'to consider of the Rules by which the 
Nomenclature of Zoology may be established on a uniform and permanent basis'. Report of 
the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1842: 105-121. 

Wheeler, A. 1988. The nomenclature of the sole, Solea solea (Linnaeus, 1758). Journal of Fish 
Biology, 33: 489^90. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



139 



(2) F. Christian Thompson . - , . , . , 

Systematic Entomology Laboratory , USDA, Washington, B.C., U.S.A. ' • ■ - 

No action by the Commission is required to conserve the name Muraena Linnaeus in 
its accustomed usage as in 1827 Bory de Saint- Vincent (p. 305) designated Muraena 
Helena Linnaeus as type species. This designation is much earUer than Bleeker's. 



Reference 

Bory de Saint-Vincent, J.B.G.M. 1827. In Audouin, [J.V.] et al. (Eds.), Dictionnaire classique 
(f'i/wfo/re 7Van/re//e, vol. 1 1. 615 pp. Rey & Gravier, Paris. ^ ., • 

(3) Ruth A. Cooper ' 
Secretariat, The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural 
History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, U.K. 

This case is thus resolved without need for action by the Commission. In the light of 
the above comments, the following information is given on the genera and species 
involved. 

Anguilla Schrank, 1798 (p. 304), type species by monotypy Muraena anguilla 
Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 245). 

Muraena Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 244), type species by subsequent designation by Bory de 
Saint- Vincent (1827, p. 305) Muraena helena Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 244). . 



Further comment on the proposed suppression for nomenclature of three works by 
R.W. Wells and C.R. Wellington 

(Case 2531; see BZN 44: 11^121, 257-261; 45: 52-54, 145-153,216) 

P. Bouchet, R. Bour, A. Dubois, D. Goujet, J.P. Hugot, J. Pierre & S. Tillier 
Museum national d'Histoire naturelle, 7 5005 Paris, France 

The recently published Contributions to the History of Herpetology (Adler, 1989) 
contains an Index of Authors in Taxonomic Herpetology compiled by John S. 
Applegarth. We quote the following paragraph from the introduction to this Index: 
'Note. — It is the personal opinion of the compiler that the methods and recent 
writings of Richard W. Wells and C. Ross Wellington are inconsistent with 
acceptable practices of taxonomy, and that such writings should be rejected 
by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Therefore 
Mr Wells and Mr Wellington are not included in this compilation. For 
further opinions on this matter see Herpetological Review, 16: 4—7 and 69, and 
Australian Entomological Society News Bulletin, 21: 66-69.' 
We are outraged by this attitude, which is best compared with the Stalinist falsifi- 
cation of history. Such statements demonstrate that the 'anti- Wells & Wellington' 
group of persons will not be satisfied with a rejection by the Commission of their works: 
their names should also disappear from the History of Herpetology. In the next step 



140 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



will we be told that Wells and Wellington have simply never existed? Or perhaps they 
should be physically eliminated using an ice-pick? 

We therefore urge the Commission to reject the application to suppress the works by 
Wells & Wellington for the very reasons that some of us have expressed earlier (BZN 
45: 146-149; The Australian Herpetologist, 528: 1-5). 

Reference 



Adler, K. 1989. Contributions to the History of Herpetology. Contributions to Herpetology, 5: 
1-202. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



141 



OPINION 1587 

Orbitolina d'Orbigny, 1850 (Foraminiferida): Orbulites concava 
Lamarck, 1816 confirmed as the type species 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type species for the nominal genus 
Orbitolina d'Orbigny, 1850 prior to that of Orbulites concava Lamarck, 1816 by Davies 
(1939) are hereby set aside. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) Orbitolina d'Orbigny, 1850 (gender: feminine), type species by designation by 
Davies (1939) Orbulites concava Lamarck, 1816 as confirmed under the plenary 
powers in (1) above; 

(b) Palorbitolina Schroeder, 1963 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy 
Madreporites lenticularis Blumenbach, 1805. 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) concava Lamarck, 1816, as pubHshed in the binomen Orbulites concava (specific 
name of the type species of Orbitolina d'Orbigny, 1850); 

(b) lenticularis Blumenbach, 1805, as pubHshed in the binomen Madreporites 
r lenticularis (specific name of the type species of Palorbitolina Schroeder, 1963). 

History of Case 2663 

An application for the confirmation of Orbulites concava Lamarck, 1816 as the type 
species of Orbitolina dCOvhigny , 1 850 was received from Prof R. SchxotdQV {Universitdt 
Frankfurt, Frankfurt a. M., Fed. Rep. Germany) & Mr M. Simmons {BP Research 
Centre, Sunbury-on-Thames , U.K.) on 4 May 1988. After correspondence the case was 
pubHshed in BZN 45: 254-257 (December 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appro- 

jpriate journals. No comments were received. With reference to para. 3 (p. 254) of the 
application, it might be clearer to say that the expressions 'specific type' and 'type' of 
Parker & Jones (1860, p. 35) mean simply 'species', rather than 'typical form of a 
species'; as stated in the application Parker & Jones did not designate a type species for 

^rbitolina. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals pubHshed in BZN 45: 256. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990 
(the votes were as foUows: 

Affirmative votes — 26: Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, 
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de 
iouza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, 
Frjapitzin, Ueno, WilHnk 
J Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Bayer and Starobogatov. 



142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 

concava, Orbulites, Lamarck, 1816, Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertebres, vol. 2, p. 197. 
lenticularis , Madreporites, Blumenbach, 1805, Abbildungen naturhistorischer Gegenstdnde, 
Heft 8, no. 80. 

Orbitolina d'Orbigny, 1850, Prodrome de Paleontologie stratigraphique universelle des animaux 
mollusques & rayonnes faisant suite au cours elementaire de Paleontologie et de Geologic 
stratigraphiques, vol. 2, p. 143. 

Palorbitolina Schroeder, 1963, Neues Jahrbuch fiir Geologie und Paldontologie Abhandlungen, 
117: 348. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1 990 

OPINION 1588 



143 



Hapalorhynchus beadlei Goodman, 1987 (Trematoda, Digenea): 
holotype replaced by a lectotype 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the holotype of Hapalorhynchus beadlei Goodman, 
1987 is hereby set aside. 

(2) The specimen illustrated in Fig. 1 of Goodman ( 1 987) is hereby designated as the 
lectotype of Hapalorhynchus beadlei, with the type locality 'near Kampala, Uganda' 
and the host 'Pelusios sp.'. 

(3) The name beadlei Goodman, 1987, as published in the binomen Hapalorhynchus 
beadlei and as defined by the lectotype designated in (2) above, is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2653 ' 

An application for the replacement of the holotype by a lectotype of Hapalorhynchus 
beadlei Goodman, 1987 was received from Dr T.R. Piatt {Saint Mary's College, Notre 
Dame, Indiana, U.S.A.) on 6 April 1988. After correspondence the case was published 
in BZN 45: 258-259 (December 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate 
journals. No comments were received. It was noted on the voting papers that the 
application had the support of Dr J.D. Goodman, the author of H. beadlei. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 45: 258-259. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 
1990 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Lehtinen (in part), Macpherson, Martins de 
Souza, MineUi, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, 
Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — 2: Kraus and Mahnert. ' • ■ - ' 

No votes were received from Starobogatov and Trjapitzin. 

Kraus considered that the taxonomic status of Hapalorhynchus beadlei was at 
present too confused to warrant action by the Commission. Two members of the 
Commission suggested that the proposed type specimen could be a neotype but not a 
lectotype, since a holotype had been designated previously. This is not the case, how- 
ever, since the Commission has, using its plenary powers, set aside the previous 
holotype (which differed from the published description and figure of H. beadlei). 

Original reference 

The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruHng given 
in the present Opinion: 

beadlei, Hapalorhynchus, Goodman, 1987, Transactions of the American Microscopical Society, 
106: 80. 



1 44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1 990 

OPINION 1589 



Phyllodoce ( Carobia) rubiginosa Saint- Joseph, 1888 (currently also 
Nereiphylla rubiginosa; Annelida, Polychaeta): specific name conserved 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name breviremis de Quatrefages, 1865, as 
published in the binomen Phyllodoce breviremis, is hereby suppressed for the purposes 
of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name rubiginosa Saint-Joseph, 1888, as published in the combination 
Phyllodoce ( Carobia ) rubiginosa, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology. 

(3) The name breviremis de Quatrefages, 1865, as published in the binomen 
Phyllodoce breviremis and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official 
Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2633 

An application for the conservation of Phyllodoce (Carobia) breviremis de 
Quatrefages, 1865 (a marine paddle worm) was received from Dr F. Pleijel {University 
of Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden) on 30 December 1987. After correspondence the 
case was pubUshed in BZN 45: 260-26 1 (December 1 988). Notice of the case was sent to 
appropriate journals. No comments were received. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals pubHshed in BZN 45: 260. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 18: Bock, Cocks, Cogger, CorUss, Halvorsen, Kraus, Lehtinen, 
Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, 
Thompson, Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — 9: Bayer, Dupuis, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Macpherson, 
Mroczkowski and Trjapitzin. 

No vote was received from Starobogatov. 

Bayer, Hahn, Mroczkowski and Nye would have preferred giving rubiginosa Saint- 
Joseph, 1888 precedence over breviremis de Quatrefages, 1 865 to the suppression of the 
latter name. Heppell considered insufficient evidence had been presented (or probably 
existed) to depart from priority. Dupuis drew attention to the existence of a type 
specimen for breviremis but not for rubiginosa. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

breviremis, Phyllodoce, de Quatrefages, 1865, Histoire Naturelle des Anneles Marins et d'Eau 
Douce, vol. 2, p. 132. 

rubiginosa, Phyllodoce (Carobia), Saint-Joseph, 1888, Annates des Sciences Naturelles 
(Zoologie), (7)5:2^2. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



145 



OPINION 1590 -^r0-/ - ^^^'k' ; - 

Pleuromma princeps Scott, 1894 (currently Gaussia princeps; Crustacea, 
Copepoda): specific name conserved 

Ruling >■ ,. : 

(1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) it is hereby ruled that the specific name princeps Scott, 1894, as published in the 
binomen Pleuromma princeps, is not invalid by reason of its having been rejected 
before 1961 as a former secondary homonym of Metridia princeps Giesbrecht, 
1889; 

(b) the specific name melanotica Wolfenden, 1905, as published in the binomen 
Gaussia melanotica, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of 
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 

(c) all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Gaussia Wolfenden, 
1905 are hereby set aside and Pleuromma princeps Scott, 1894 is designated as 
type species. 

(2) The name Gaussia Wolfenden, 1905 (gender: feminine), type species designated 
in (l)(c) above Pleuromma princeps Scott, 1894, is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name princeps Scott, 1 894, as published in the binomen Pleuromma princeps 
(specific name of the type species of Gaussia Wolfenden, 1905), is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) melanotica Wolfenden, 1905, as pubhshed in the binomen Gaussia melanotica 
and as suppressed in (l)(b) above; , 

(b) scotti Giesbrecht, 1 897, as published in the binomen Metridia scotti, a junior 
objective synonym of princeps Scott, 1894, as pubhshed in the binomen 
P/eMromma/7r/«c^/;^, by effect of the ruling in (l)(a) above. ' 

History of Case 2622 

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Pleuromma princeps 
Scott, 1894 was received from Dr K. Hulsemann (Biologische Anstalt Helgoland, 
Hamburg, Fed. Rep. Germany) on 1 September 1987. After correspondence the case 
was pubhshed in BZN 45: 188-190 (September 1988). Notice of the case was sent to 
appropriate journals. No comments were received. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 45: 1 89, with an additional proposal on the voting paper to 
set aside all previous fixations of type species for Gaussia Wolfenden, 1905 and to 
designate Pleuromma princeps Scott, 1897 as the type. It was emphasised that this 
involved no change in the effect of the proposals as pubhshed, but would achieve a more 
clearly worded ruhng. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990 the votes were 
as follows: 



146 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, 
Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, 
Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson (in part), Trjapitzin, 
Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — 3: Cogger, Dupuis and Holthuis. 

No vote was received from Starobogatov. 

Holthuis did not see that use of the name scotti Giesbrecht, 1897 for Scott's species 
would cause any confusion. Thompson supported the conservation of the name 
princeps Scott, 1894, but said that the suppression of melanotica Wolfenden, 1905 was 
not needed. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
GaM5j/a Wolfenden, 1905, Plankton Studies, part 1, p. 5. 
melanotica, Gaussia, Wolfenden, 1905, Plankton Studies, part 1, p. 5. 

princeps, Pleuromma, Scott, 1894, Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Zoological 
Series, 6: 42. 

scotti, Metridia, Giesbrecht, 1897, Zoologischer Anzeiger, 20: 254. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 147 

OPINION 1591 , --K^^^^^^ 

Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980 (Crustacea, Decapoda): 
Troglocarcinus heimi Fize & Serene, 1956 confirmed as the type species 

Ruling 

(1) It is hereby confirmed that the type species of the nominal genus Fizesereneia 
Takeda & Tamura, 1980 is Troglocarcinus heimi Fize & Serene, 1956. 

(2) The name Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980 (gender: feminine), type species 
as confirmed in (1) above Troglocarcinus heimi Fize & Serene, 1956, is hereby placed on 
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name heimi Fize & Serene, 1956, as published in the binomen Troglocarcinus 
heimi (specific name of the type species of Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980) is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2636 

An application for the confirmation of Troglocarcinus heimi Fize & Serene, 1956 
as the type species of Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980 was received from Dr 
R.K. Kropp {Ocean Sciences-Ventura Operations, Ventura, California, U.S.A.) on 
12 January 1988. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 262-263 
(December 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments 
were received. It was noted on the voting paper that the species heimi Fize & Serene is 
described on p. 378. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals pubhshed in BZN 45: 262. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 26: Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, 
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de 
Souza, Minelh, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, 
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Bayer and Starobogatov. 



Original references ' ' ■ " - < 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 

Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980, Bulletin of the National Science Museum, Tokyo, (A)6: 
137. 

heimi, Troglocarcinus, Fize & Serene, 1956, Bulletin de la Societe Zoologique de France, 80(5,6): 
378. 



148 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



OPINION 1592 

Bodotria Goodsir, 1843 (Crustacea, Cumacea): conserved 
Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the name Cuma H. Milne Edwards, 1828 is hereby 
suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle 
of Homonymy. 

(2) The name Bodotria Goodsir, 1843 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy 
Bodotria arenosa Goodsir, 1 843, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names 
in Zoology. 

(3) The name arenosa Goodsir, 1843, as published in the binomen Bodotria arenosa 
(specific name of the type species of Bodotria Goodsir, 1843), is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The name bodotriidae Scott, 1901 (type genus Bodotria Goodsir, 1843) is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. 

(5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Cuma H. Milne Edwards, 1828, as suppressed in (1) above; 

(b) Cuma Humphrey, 1797 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatural 
purposes). 

History of Case 2645 

An application for the conservation of Bodotria Goodsir, 1843 was received from 
Drs M. Bacescu {Muzeul National de Istorie Naturala 'Grigore Antipa', Bucuresti, 
Romania) & L.B. Holthuis {Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden, The 
Netherlands) on 22 February 1988 and published in BZN 45: 264-266 (December 
1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. 
Dr Holthuis {in litt. to the Commission Secretariat, 17 April 1988) stated that the last 
use of the name Cuma for any species of Bodotria was in 1903, and that for the first four 
species (of the 32 known) which are listed in the Bodotria section of Crustaceorum 
Catalogus (1988) there are 23 authors with 37 papers within the last 50 years. 

Additional reference 

Bacescu, M. 1988. Genus Bodotria. Pp. 34^9 in Gruner, H.E. & Holthuis, L.B. 
(Eds.), Crustaceorum Catalogus. Part 7. Cumacea 1 (Families Archaeocumatidae, 
Lampropidae, Bodotriidae, Leuconidae). 173 pp. SPB Academic PubUshing, The 
Hague. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals pubHshed in BZN 45: 265. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 23: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de 
Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Schuster, Thompson, Ueno, Willink 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1 990 



149 



Negative votes — 4: Lehtinen, Mroczkowski, Savage and Trjapitzin. 
No vote was received from Starobogatov. 



Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

arenosa, Bodotria, Goodsir, l?'^^, Edinburgh New PhilosophicalJournal, 34: 12?,. . 
Bodotria Goodsir, 1843, Edinburgh New PhilosophicalJournal, 34: 128. 
BODOTRiiDAE Scott, 1901, Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, 19; 273. 
Cuma Humphrey, 1797, Museum Calonnianum, p. 35. 

Cuma H. Milne Edwards, 1828, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Pans (1)13: 287. 



1 50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 

OPINION 1593 



Iphinoe Bate, 1856 (Crustacea, Cumacea): conserved 



Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the following names are hereby suppressed for the 
purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy: 

(a) Rafinesque, 1815; 

(b) Iphinoe H. &. A. Adams, 1854; 

(c) any use of the name Iphinoe prior to Iphinoe Bate, 1 856. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) Iphinoe Bate, 1 856 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Cuma trispinosa 
Goodsir, 1843; 

(b) Uroctea Dufour, 1820 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Uroctea 
quinquemaculataDufouT, 1820. 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) quinquemaculata Dufour, 1 820, as published in the binomen Uroctea quinque- 
maculata (specific name of the type species of Uroctea Dufour, 1820); 

(b) trispinosa Goodsir, 1843, as published in the binomen Cuma trispinosa (specific 
name of the type species of Iphinoe Bate, 1856). 

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Iphinoe Rafinesque, 1815, as suppressed in (l)(a) above; 

(b) Iphinoe H. & A. Adams, 1845, as suppressed in (l)(b) above; 

(c) Halia Bate, 1856 (a junior homonym of Halia Risso, 1826); 

(d) Venilia Bate, 1856 (a junior homonym of Venilia Duponchel, 1829). 



History of Case 2643 

An application for the conservation of Iphinoe Bate, 1856 was received from Drs M. 
Bacescu {Muzeul National de Istorie Naturala 'Grigore Antipa', Bucuresti, Romania) & 
L.B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden, The Netherlands) on 22 
February 1988 and published in BZN 45: 267-269 (December 1988). Notice of the case 
was sent to appropriate journals. Comments in support from two mollusc specialists, 
Anders Waren {Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, Stockholm, Sweden) and Richard S. 
Houbrick {National Museum of Natural History, Washington, U.S.A.), were published 
in BZN 46: 190-191 (September 1989). Dr Waren pointed out that the replacement 
name Neoiphinoe Habe, 1978 is available for Iphinoe H. & A. Adams, 1854 (even 
though proposed because of a mistaken priority assumption; cf. para. 6 of the 
application). 

Norman's (1869) first reviser action (para. 3 of the application) gave Bate's Iphinoe 
precedence over Cyrianassa Bate, 1856; the former name is thus nomenclaturally valid 
as its senior homonyms have been suppressed. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



151 



Decision of tlie Commission 

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 45: 268-269. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 
1990 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, CorHss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen (in part), Macpherson, 
Mahnert, Martins de Souza, MinelH, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, 
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — 1 : Mroczkowski. /. . , 

No vote was received from Starobogatov. 

Lehtinen and Mroczkowski did not consider the suppression of the name Iphinoe 
H. & A. Adams to be justified. - 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
Halia Bate, 1856, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (2)17: 458. 
Iphinoe Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse de la Nature, p. 107. 

Iphinoe H. & A. Adams, 1854, The genera of recent Mollusca arranged according to their 

organization, vol. 1, p. 280. 
Iphinoe Bate, 1856, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (2)18: 1 87. 

quinquemaculata, Uroctea, Dufour, 1820, Annales generates des Sciences Physiques, Bruxelles, 
5: 200. 

trispinosa, Cunia, Goodsir, 1843, Edinburgh New PhilosophicalJournal, 34: 126. 
Uroctea Dufour, 1820, Annales generales des Sciences Physiques, Bruxelles, 5: 198. 
Venilia Bate, 1856, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (2)17: 460. 



1 52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1 990 

OPINION 1594 



Leucon Krayer, 1846 (Crustacea, Cumacea): conserved 
Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the name Leucon Schoenherr, 1834, and any use of 
that name prior to Leucon Kroyer, 1846, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both 
the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name Leucon Kroyer, 1846 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Sars (1879) Cuma nasica Kroyer, 1841, is hereby placed on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name nasica Kroyer, 1841, as published in the binomen Cuma nasica 
(specific name of the type species of Leucon Kroyer, 1846), is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The name leuconidae Sars, 1878 (type genus Leucon Kroyer, 1846) is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. 

(5) The name Leucon Schoenherr, 1834 is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2644 

An application for the conservation of Leucon Kreyer, 1 846 was received from Drs 
M. Bacescu (Muzeul National de Istorie Naturala 'Grigore Antipa ', Bucuresti, Romania) 
& L.B. Holthuis {Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden, The Netherlands) on 
22 February 1988 and pubUshed in BZN 45: 270-271 (December 1988). Notice of the 
case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. It was noted on 
the voting paper that Leucon Schoenherr is wrongly described in the Abstract of 
the appHcation as a 'synonym' of Leucon Kreyer; this should have read 'homonym'. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 45: 271 . At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza, MineUi, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, 
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

No vote was received from Starobogatov. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
Leucon Kroyer, 1846, Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift, n. ser., 2: 208. 

Leucon Schoenherr, 1834, Genera et species Curculionidum cum synonymia hujus familiae, vol. 2, 
part 1, p. 285. 

LEUCONIDAE Sars, 1878, Archiv for Mathematik og Naturvidenskab, 3: 466. 
nasica, Cuma, Kroyer, 1841, Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift, (1)3; 524. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



153 



OPINION 1595 

Aleuropteryx Low, 1885 (Insecta, Neuroptera): Aleuropteryx loewii 
Klapalak, 1894 designated as the type species 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers all fixations of type species for the nominal genus 
Aleuropteryx Low, 1885 are hereby set aside and Aleuropteryx loewii Klapalak, 1 894 is 
designated as type species. 

(2) The name Aleuropteryx Low, 1885 (gender: feminine), type species by desig- 
nation under the plenary powers in (1) above Aleuropteryx loewii Klapalak, 1894, is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name loewii Klapalak, 1894, as pubHshed in the binomen Aleuropteryx 
/oewn (mandatory correction of Lowii; specific name of the type species of Aleuropteryx 
Low, 1885), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The name ALEUROPTERYOrNAE Enderlein, 1905, type genus Aleuropteryx Low, 
1885, is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2651 

An application for the designation of Aleuropteryx loewii Klapalak, 1894 as the 
type species of Aleuropteryx Low, 1885 was received from Drs J.D. Oswald {Cornell 
University, Ithaca, New York, U.S.A.) & M. Meinander {Helsingfors Universitet, 
Helsingfors, Finland) on 14 March 1988. After correspondence the case was published 
in BZN 45: 272-274 (December 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate 
journals. No comments were received. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals pubHshed in BZN 45: 273. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de 
Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, 
Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — none. ; • : . 

No votes were received from Kabata, Starobogatov and Trjapitzin. 

• - 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 

ALEtJROPTERYGiNAE Enderlein, 1905, Zoologischer Anzeiger, 29: 225. 

Aleuropteryx Low, 1885, Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien. 

Mathematische-Naturwissenschaftlichen Klasse (Abt. 1), 91: 79. 
loewii, Aleuropteryx, Klapalak, 1894, Entomologist's Monthly Magazine, 30: 122. 



154 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



OPINION 1596 

Semblis Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Trichoptera): Phryganea phalaenoides 
Linnaeus, 1758 conserved as the type species, thus conserving Sialis 
Latreille, 1802 (Insecta, Megaloptera) 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type species for the nominal genus 
Semblis Fabricius, 1 775 prior to that of Phryganea phalaenoides Linnaeus, 1 758 by Van 
der Weele (1910) are hereby set aside. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) Semblis Fabricius, 1775 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent desig- 
nation by Van der Weele (1910) Phryganea phalaenoides Linnaeus, 1758, as 
conserved in (1) above; 

(b) Sialis Latreille, 1802 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Hemerobius 
/u^ar/M^ Linnaeus, 1758. 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) phalaenoides Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Phryganea 
phalaenoides (specific name of the type species of Semblis Fabricius, 1 775); 

(b) lutarius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Hemerobius lutarius 
(specific name of the type species of Sialis Latreille, 1802). 

History of Case 2655 

An application for the conservation of Phryganea phalaenoides Linnaeus, 1758 as 
the type species of Semblis Fabricius, 1775, thus conserving Sialis Latreille, 1802, 
was received from Dr J.D. Oswald {Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, U.S.A.) on 
19 April 1988. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 275-277 
(December 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments 
were received. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 45: 276. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 26: Bock, Cocks, Cogger, CorUss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, 
He'ppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de 
Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, 
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Bayer and Starobogatov. 
Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 

lutarius, Hemerobius, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. I, p. 550. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



155 



phalaenoides, Phryganea, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 547. "V- Hi 
Semblis Fabricius, 1775, Systema Entomologiae..., p. 305. 

Sialis Latreille, 1802, Histoire naturelle, generate et particuliere des Crustaces et des Insectes, 
vol. 3, p. 290. 

The following is the reference for the designation Phryganea phalaenoides as the type species 
of Semblis: 

Van der Weele, H.W. 1910. Megaloptera. Collection Zoologiques du Baron Edm. de Selys 
Longchamps. Catalogue Systematique et Descriptif, fasc. 5. p. 55. 



156 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



OPINION 1597 

Coryphium angusticolle Stephens, 1834 (Insecta, Coleoptera): generic 
and specific names conserved 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the names Harpognatus Wesmael, 1833 and robynsii 
Wesmael, 1833, as pubhshed in the binomen Harpognatus robynsii, are hereby sup- 
pressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of 
Homonymy. 

(2) The name Coryphium Stephens, 1834 (gender: neuter), type species by monotypy 
Coryphium angusticolle Stephens, 1834, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name angusticolle Stephens, 1834, as published in the binomen Coryphium 
angusticolle (specific name of the type species of Coryphium Stephens, 1834), is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Harpognatus Wesmael, 1833, as suppressed in (1) above; 

(b) Harpognathus Wesmael, 1834, an incorrect speUing of Harpognatus Wesmael, 
1833. 

(5) The name robynsii Wesmael, 1833, as published in the binomen Harpognatus 
robynsii and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and InvaHd Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2627 

An application for the conservation of both the generic and specific names 
Coryphium angusticolle Stephens, 1834 was received from Dr L. Zerche {Institut fiir 
Pflanzenschutzforschung Kleinmachnow der Akademie der Landwirtschaftswissen- 
schaften der DDR, Eberswalde-Finow , DDR) on 2 October 1987 and pubhshed in BZN 
45: 197-198 (September 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A 
comment in support from Dr M.K. Thayer {Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, 
U.S.A:) was published in BZN 46: 44 (March 1989). 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 45: 197-198. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 
1990 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, 
Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

No vote was received from Starobogatov. 

Martins de Souza abstained because of a reference indicating that Coryphium 
Stephens might have been pubhshed in 1832, which would have made the apphcation 
redundant. The date 1834 is however correct. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



157 



Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official 
Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

angusticolle , Coryphium, Stephens, 1 834, Illustrations of British Entomology, Mandibulata, vol. 5, 
p. 344. 

Coryphium Stephens, 1834, Illustrations of British Entomology, Mandibulata, vol. 5, p. 344. 
Harpognathus Wesmael, 1 834, L 'Institut ( Journal general des Societes et Travaux scientifiques de 

la France et de I'Etranger), 2{42). 76. • : 

Harpognatus WesmSLcl, \S?i3, Recueil Encyclopedique Beige, p. \2l. - ^ 

robynsii, Harpognatus, V/esmael, IS33, Recueil Encyclopedique Beige, p. \2\. 



158 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



OPINION 1598 

Ophonus Dejean, 1821 and Tachys Dejean, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera): 
Carabus sabulicola Panzer, 1796 and Tachys scute liar is Stephens, 1828 
designated as the respective type species 

Ruling 

( 1 ) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Ophonus Dejean, 
1821 are hereby set aside and Carabus sabulicola Panzer, 1796 is designated as 
type species; 

(b) all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Tachys Dejean, 
1821 are hereby set aside and Tachys scutellaris Stephens, 1828 is designated as 
type species. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) Ophonus Dejean, 1821 (gender: masculine), type species by designation under 
the plenary powers in (l)(a) above Carabus sabulicola Panzer, 1796; 

(b) Tachys Dejean, 1821 (gender: masculine), type species by designation under the 
plenary powers in (l)(b) above Tachys scutellaris Stephens, 1828. 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) sabulicola Panzer, 1 796, as published in the binomen Carabus sabulicola (specific 
name of the type species of Ophonus Dejean, 1821); 

(b) scutellaris Stephens, 1828, as published in the binomen Tachys scutellaris 
(specific name of the type species of Tachys Dejean, 1821). 

History of Case 2585 

An apphcation for the designation of Carabus sabulicola Panzer, 1796 and Tachys 
scutellaris Stephens, 1828 as the respective type species of Ophonus Dejean, 1821 and 
Tachys Dejean, 1821 was received from Dr H. Silfverberg (Universitetets Zoologiska 
Museum, Helsingfors, Finland) on 7 November 1986. After correspondence the case 
was pubUshed in BZN 45: 278-279 (December 1988). Notice of the case was sent to 
appropriate journals. No comments were received. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 45: 278-279. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 
1990 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, CorUss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen (in part), Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins 
de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, 
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Halvorsen and Starobogatov. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



159 



Lehtinen commented that the appHcation did not give any reason for the retention of 
Tachys Dejean, 1821, and accordingly he voted against the proposals relating to that 
nominal genus [however, reference was made in the application to a relevant paper by 
Erwin(1974)]. -...M-.'/y.^ 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 

Ophonus Dejean, 1821, Catalogue de la collection de Coleopteres de M. le Baron Dejean, p. 13. 
sabulicola, Carabus, Panzer, 1796, Fauna Insectorum Germaniae initia, part 30, p. 4. 
scutellaris. Tachys, Stephens, 1828, Illustrations of British Entomology , Mandibulata, vol. 2, p. 5. 
Tachys Dejean, 1821, Catalogue de la collection de Coleopteres de M. le Baron Dejean, p. 16. 



160 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



OPINION 1599 

Papilio carthami Hiibner, [1813] and Syrichthus serratulae major 
Staudinger, 1879 (currently both in Pyrgus; Insecta, Lepidoptera): the 
specific names carthami and major conserved 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name maior Fabricius, 1787, as published 
in the trinomen Papilio malvae maior, and all uses of the name maior Fabricius, 1 793, 
are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the 
Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) carthami Hubner, [1813], as published in the binomen Papilio carthami; 

(b) major Staudinger, 1879, as pubhshed in the trinomen Syrichthus serratulae 
major. 

(3) The name maior Fabricius, 1787, as pubhshed in the trinomen Papilio malvae 
maior and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected 
and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2623 

An application for the conservation of the specific names of the Skipper butterflies 
Papilio carthami Hubner, [1813] and Syrichthus serratulae major Staudinger, 1879 
was received from Dr R. de Jong {Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The 
Netherlands) on 7 September 1987. After correspondence the case was pubhshed in 
BZN 45: 280-282 (December 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate 
journals. No comments were received. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals pubhshed in BZN 45: 281 . At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, 
Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, 
Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Trjapitzin, Ueno, WilUnk 

Negative votes — 1 : Thompson. 

No votes were received from Kabata and Starobogatov. 
Dupuis abstained. 

Thompson considered insufficient evidence had been provided to justify the 
suppression of the name maior Fabricius, 1787. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

carthami, Papilio, Hiibner, [1813], Sammlung europaischer Schmetterlinge, vol. 1, pi. 143. 
maior, Papilio malvae, Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa insectorum, vol. 2, p. 91. 
major, Syrichthus serratulae, Staudinger, 1879, Horae Societatis Entomologicae Rossicae, 14: 
292. 



BulletinofZoologicalNomenclature47(2) June 1990 161 

OPINION1600 ■ - - - . ■^'''f ' Zy'y > 

Tachina orbata Wiedemann, 1830 (currently Peribaea orbata; Insecta, 
Diptera): neotype designation confirmed 

Ruling 

(1) It is hereby ruled that the specific name orbata Wiedemann, 1830, as published 
in the binomen Tachina orbata, is to be interpreted by reference to the specimen 
designated as neotype by Crosskey (1967). 

(2) The name orbata Wiedemann, 1830, as published in the binomen Tachina orbata 
and as defined by the neotype designated by Crosskey (1967), is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2632 

An application for the confirmation of the designation of a neotype for Tachina 
orbata Wiedemann, 1830 was received from Drs R.W. Crosskey {The Natural History 
Museum, London, U.K.) & H. Shima {Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) on 23 
December 1987. After correspondence the case was pubHshed in BZN 45: 199-201 
(September 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments 
were received. , 

Decision of the Commission ' > ; ■ > , 

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 45: 20 1 . At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1 990 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 
Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Schuster, Thompson, Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — 1: Macpherson. 

No votes were received from Starobogatov or Trjapitzin. 

Savage abstained, as he did not consider any action necessary because the neotype 
designation had not been formally challenged. 

Original reference 

The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given 
in the present Opinion: 

orbata, Tachina, Wiedemann, 1830, Aussereuropdische zweiflUgelige Insekten, 2: 336. 



1 62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1 990 

OPINION 1601 



Rapport sur les Myodaires du Docteur Robineau Desvoidy (1826): 
suppressed for nomenclatural purposes 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the following work is hereby suppressed for 
nomenclatural purposes: 

Rapport sur les Myodaires du Docteur Robineau Desvoidy (H.M.D. de Blainville, 
Rapporteur), Academie Royale des Sciences de I'lnstitut de France, Paris, 1826. 

(2) The above work, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official 
Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature. 

History of Case 2654 

An application for the suppression of the Rapport . . . was received from Dr C.W. 
Sabrosky {USD A, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington. DC. U.S.A.) on 11 April 
1988. After correspondence the case was pubUshed in BZN 45: 283-287 (December 
1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received, 
but the application was supported by a number of entomologists (see BZN 45: 287, 
para. 10). 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals pubhshed in BZN 45: 287. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, CorHss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, 
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

No vote was received from Starobogatov. 

Dupuis commented that he had in 1963 published doubt concerning the valid 
publication of the Rapport. 

Original reference 

The following is the original reference to the work placed on an Official Index by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 

Academie Royale des Sciences de I'lnstitut de France, 1 826, Rapport sur les Myodaires du Docteur 
Robineau Desvoidy (H.M.D. de Blainville, Rapporteur), 24 pp., Paris. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



163 



OPINION 1602 - . .. ■ ^ 

Tenthredo zonula Klug, 1817 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): specific name 
conserved 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name bicinctaflava Christ, 1791, as 
published in the binomen Tenthredo bicinctaflava, is hereby suppressed for the 
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name zonula Klug, 1817, as published in the binomen Tenthredo zonula, is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name bicinctaflava Christ, 1791, as published in the binomen Tenthredo 
bicinctaflava and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invahd Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2628 

An application for the conservation of the specific name Tenthredo zonula Klug, 
1817, was received from Dr A. Taeger {Institut fUr Pflanzenschutzforschung Kleinmach- 
now der Akademie der Landwirtschaftswissenschaften der DDR, Eberswalde-Finow , 
DDR) on 2 October 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 
202-203 (September 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No 
comments were received. With reference to paras. 1 and 2 of the application it should be 
noted that both bicinctaflava Christ, 1791 and zonula Klug, 1817 are based in part on 
'La mouche-a-scie a deux bandes jaunes' of Geoflfroy (p. 275 in Histoire abregee des 
Insectes quise trouvent aux environs de Paris, vol.2, 690 pp., pis. 1 1-22. Durand, Paris.). 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 45: 203 . At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1 990 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, 
Thompson, Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Starobogatov or Trjapitzin. ' ' " ' 

. . :■.■>; ■ '; " i . ' 

Original reference 

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

bicinctaflava, Tenthredo, Christ, 1791, Naturgeschichte, Klassification and Nomenclatur der 

Insekten vom Bienen, Wespen und Ameisengeschlecht, p. 442. 
zonula, Tenthredo, Klug, 1817, Der Gesellschaft naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin Magazin fiir 

die neuesten Entdeckungen in der gesammten Naturkunde, Berlin, 8(1814): 137. 



164 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



OPINION 1603 

Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824 (Osteichthyes, Saccopharyngiformes): 
conserved 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824 is 
deemed to be the name of a then new nominal genus, and not a replacement name for 
Stylephorus Shaw, 1791 . 

(2) Under the plenary powers all previous type fixations for Saccopharynx Mitchill, 
1 824 are hereby set aside and Saccopharynx flagellum Cuvier, 1 829 is hereby designated 
as the type species. 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in 
(2) above Saccopharynx flagellum Cuvier, 1829 (a junior subjective synonym of 
Ophiognathus ampullaceus Harwood, 1827); 

(b) Stylephorus Shaw, 1791 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy 
Stylephorus chordatus Shaw, 1791. 

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) ampullaceus Harwood, 1827, as published in the binomen Ophiognathus 
ampullaceus (senior subjective synonym of the specific name of Saccopharynx 
flagellum Cuvier, 1829, the type species of Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824); 

(b) chordatus Shaw, 1791, as published in the binomen Stylephorus chordatus 
(specific name of the type species of Stylephorus Shaw, 1791). 

(5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group 
Names in Zoology: 

(a) SACCOPHARYNGIDAE Blccker, 1859 (type genus Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824); 

(b) STYLEPHORIDAE Swainson, 1839 (type genus Stylephorus Shaw, 1791). 

History of Case 2625 

An application for the conservation of Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824 was received 
from Drs W.N. Eschmeyer {California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California, 
U.S.A.) & C.R. Kobms {University of Miami, Miami, Florida. U.S.A.) on 14 September 
1987 and published in BZN 45: 204-206 (September 1988). Notice of the case was sent 
to appropriate journals. No comments were received. 

Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824 was, strictly speaking, originally a replacement name 
for Stylephorus Shaw, 1791 (cf. para. 2 of the application), although treated by all 
subsequent workers as a new nominal genus. The name chordatus cannot be used for 
Mitchill's Saccopharynx species under Article 49 of the Code and it never has been so 
used. Cuvier (1 829, p. 355; para. 4 of the appHcation) described the genus jointly under 
the two names Saccopharynx Mitchill and Ophiognathus Harwood. He referred to 'Le 
Saccopharynx flagellum de Mitchill' (sic), without mentioning chordatus for which (in 
its Saccopharynx sense) flagellum was evidently a replacement name. Of the species 
Ophiognathus ampullaceus Harwood, 1827 Cuvier wrote that while it might not be 
identical to flagellum it 'manifestement' belonged to the same genus. It is clear 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



165 



that Saccopharynx flagellum Cuvier, 1829 is the appropriate nominal type species. 
Subsequent workers have synonymised flagellum and ampuUaceus and the latter name 
is treated as valid. As first submitted the application by Drs Eschmeyer & Robins did 
not include the suppression of ampuUaceus, and proposals (1) and (6) on BZN 45: 205 
were withdrawn. Proposal (2) was also amended, and the proposals were given in their 
amended form on the voting papers. The amended proposals achieve the stabilisation 
of existing usage and the purpose of the published application. 

Decision of the Commission ^ 

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 45: 205, amended as noted above. At the close of the 
voting period on 1 March 1990 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, CorHss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, MineUi, 
Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, 
Willink 

Negative votes — l:Lehtinen. ' , 

No vote was received from Starobogatov. " ' ' 

Martins de Souza abstained. 

Lehtinen considered that the name Ophiognathus Harwood, 1827 should be used 
instead of Saccopharynx, since the latter was published as a replacement name for 
Stylephorus Shaw, 1 79 1 . . ^ , , 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 

ampuUaceus, Ophiognathus, Harwood, 1827, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of 
London, 1821 -.51. 

chordatus, Stylephorus, Shaw, 1791, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 
1:90. 

SACCOPHARYNGIDAE Bleeker, 1859, Acta Societatis Scientiarum Indo Neerlandicae, 6: xxxiii. 
Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824, Annals of the Lyceum of Natural History of New York, 1(1): 86. 
STYLEPHORiDAE Swainson, 1839, On the natural history and classification of fishes, amphibians and 

reptiles or monocardian animals, vol. 2, p. 47. 
Stylephorus Shaw, 1791, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1: 90. 



166 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



OPINION 1604 

ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona): conserved 
Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the name Epicrium Wagler, 1 828 is hereby suppressed 
for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of 
Homonymy. 

(2) The name Ichthyophis Fitzinger, 1826 (gender: mascuhne), type species by 
monotypy Caecilia glutinosa Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name glutinosa Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Caecilia 
glutinosa (specific name of the type species of Ichthyophis Fitzinger, 1826), is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The name ichthyophiidae Taylor, 1 968 (type genus Ichthyophis Fitzinger, 1 826) 
is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. 

(5) The name Epicrium Wagler, 1828, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on 
the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 

(6) The name epicriidae (published as 'Epicria') Fitzinger, 1843 (type genus 
Epicrium Wagler, 1828) (invalid because the name of the type genus is suppressed in (1) 
above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group 
Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2616 

An application for the conservation of iCHTHYOPffliDAE Taylor, 1968 was received 
from Drs M. Wilkinson & R.A. Nussbaum {University of Michigan, Michigan, U.S.A.) 
on 6 July 1987 and published in BZN 45: 207-209 (September 1988). Notice of the 
case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment in support from Dr H.M. Smith 
(University of Colorado at Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.) was pubHshed in BZN 46: 134 
(June 1989). It should be noted that Caecilia glutinosa Linnaeus, 1758 appears on p. 229 
of Systema Naturae (Ed. 10, vol. 1), not p. 299 as stated in para. 1 of the application. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 45: 208. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corhss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, 
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — 1 : Thompson. 

No vote was received from Starobogatov. 

Lehtinen and Schuster cormnented that the suppression of Epicrium Wagler, 1828 
would avoid famiUal homonymy between caeciUans and mesostigmatid mites. In the 
latter group EPiCRiroAE Berlese, 1885 is a well established family, based on Epicrius 
Canestrini & Fanzago, 1877. Thompson considered that there was no reason given to 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



167 



suppress Epicrium, and that it would have been possible to give ichthyophiidae 
precedence over EPiCRiiDAE. ■ . i ' 

[Note by P.K. Tubbs. The status of family-group names derived from suppressed 
names of type genera requires further consideration by the Commission. In the present 
case Epicrium Wagler, 1828 has been suppressed 'but not for the purposes of the 
Principle of Homonymy', and its derived family name epicriidae Fitzinger, 1843 can 
no longer threaten junior synonyms such as ichthyophiidae Taylor, 1968. In order to 
protect the junior homonym epicriidae Berlese, 1885 mentioned by Drs Lehtinen and 
Schuster it is necessary that epicriidae Fitzinger be not just nomenclaturally invalid 
but that it be unavailable, i.e. that it ceases to have any status in nomenclature. Auto- 
matic suppression of family name availability would be desirable in this case, and 
probably should apply to most if not all cases where the name of a type genus is, or has 
been, suppressed by the Commission using its plenary powers. Pending consideration 
of this, epicriidae Berlese, 1 885 is conserved under Article 80 of the Code (maintenance 
of existing usage)]. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official 
Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

EPICRIIDAE Fitzinger, 1843, Systema Reptilium... fasciculus primus: Amblyglossae (Conspectus 

geographicus), p. 34. 
EpicnumWag\er, Isis, von Oken,21{7): col. 142. 
glutinosa, Caecilia, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 229. 
ichthyophiidae Taylor, 1968, The caecilians of the world: a taxonomic review, p. 46. 
Ichthyophis Fitzinger, 1826, Neue Classification der Reptilien nach ihren natiirlichen verwandt- 

schaften nebst einer Verwandtschaftstafel und einem Verzeichnisse der Reptiliensammlung des 

KK. zoologischen Museums zu Wien, p. 36. 



. 1 68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1 990 

OPINION 1605 



Thorius pennatulus Cope, 1869 (Amphibia, Caudata): specific name 
conserved 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name pennatribus Cope, 1869 (May), as 
published in the binomen Thorius pennatribus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of 
the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name Thorius Cope, 1869 (May) (gender: masculine), type species by 
monotypy Thorius pennatribus Cope, 1 869 (May) ( = pennatulus Cope, 1 869 (June)), is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name pennatulus Cope, 1869 (June), as published in the binomen Thorius 
pennatulus (specific name of the type species of Thorius Cope, 1 869 by virtue of the 
ruling in (1) above), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The name pennatribus Cope, 1869, as published in the binomen Thorius 
pennatribus and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invahd Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2650 

An application for the conservation of Thorius pennatulus Cope, 1869 was received 
from Drs H.M. Smith, J. Hanken & D. Chiszar {University of Colorado at Boulder, 
Colorado, U.S.A.) on 14 March 1988. After correspondence the case was published 
in BZN 45: 210-211 (September 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate 
journals. No comments were received. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 45: 21 1 . At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, 
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — 1 : Thompson. 

No vote was received from Starobogatov. 

Nye would have preferred to treat pennatribus as an incorrect original spelling. 
Thompson considered insufficient evidence had been provided to determine whether 
use of the plenary powers was justified. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

pennatribus, Thorius, Cope, 1869 (May), American Naturalist, 3(4): 222. 

pennatulus, Thorius, Cope, 1869 (June), Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of 

Philadelphia, 2\: 111. 
Thorius Cope, 1869 (May), American Naturalist, 3(4): 222. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



169 



OPINION 1606 r - 

Semioptera wallacii Gray, 1859 (Aves, PARADiSAEroAE): conserved as the 
correct spelling of the generic and specific names 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the spelling of both the generic and specific names 
Semioptera wallacii Gray, 1 859 are hereby ruled to be correct, despite their publication 
in the spelling Semeioptera Wallacei. 

(2) The name Semioptera Gray, 1859 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy 
Semioptera wallacii Gray, 1859, spelling conserved in (1) above, is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name wallacii Gray, 1859, as published in the combination Paradisaea 
(Semeioptera) Wallacei (specific name of the type species of Semioptera Gray, 1859, 
spelling conserved in (1) above), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology. 

(4) The name Semeioptera Gray, 1859 is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (ruled in (1) above to be an incorrect 
original spelling of Semioptera Gray, 1859). 

(5) The name wallacei Gray, 1859, as published in the combination Paradisaea 
( Semeioptera) Wallacei, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Specific Names in Zoology (ruled in (1) above to be an incorrect original spelling of 
wallacii Gray, 1859). 

History of Case 2441 

An application for the conservation of the spelhng of Semioptera wallacii Gray, 1 859 
(Wallace's Standard Wing Bird of Paradise) was received from Ms M. LeCroy 
{American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.) on 3 May 1983 and pub- 
lished in BZN 45: 2 1 2-2 1 3 (September 1 988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate 
journals. An opposing comment from Jifi Mlikovsky (Czechoslovak Academy of 
Sciences, Praha), together with a reply by the author of the application and Walter J. 
Bock {Columbia University, New York, U.S.A.), was published in BZN 46: 49-50 
(March 1989). 

The original report in The Literary Gazette (March 1859) has been examined (cf. 
para. 2 of the application). The spelling Semeioptera Wallacei appeared (p. 406) in 
a Zoological Society meeting report which stated Mr G.R. Gray proposed the 
subgeneric name Semeioptera, and he further added the provisional specific name 
of Wallacei, in commemoration of the indefatigable energy [of] Mr Wallace...'. 
The report included a description of the bird, used by Gray in proposing the names. 
Authorship of these names is thus to be attributed to Gray. 

, Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
)• proposals published in BZN 45: 212-213. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 
1990 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 



170 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



Minelli, Mroczkowski (in part), Nielsen, Nye (in part), Ride, Savage, Schuster (in 
part), Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Wilhnk 

Negative votes — 2: Kabata and Lehtinen. 

No vote was received from Starobogatov. 

Lehtinen, Mroczkowski, Nye and Schuster accepted the spelHng Semioptera, but 
considered that wallacei should be retained as being correct for reasons of both priority 
and derivation. Holthuis commented that the names Semeioptera and wallacei could 
have been suppressed. Ride said the Commission should have been asked to choose 
between suppression and the course put forward on the voting papers, namely to rule 
that the Literary Gazette names were incorrect original spellings. Thompson said that 
the Commission could have ruled that The Literary Gazette was not a publication in the 
sense of the Code. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official 
Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

Semeioptera Gray, 1859, Literary Gazette (new series), 39: 406 (an incorrect original spelling of 
Semioptera). 

Semioptera Gray, 1859, Literary Gazette (new series), 39: 406 (incorrectly spelled as 
Semeioptera). 

wallacei, Paradisaea (Semeioptera), Gray, 1859, Literary Gazette (new series), 39: 406 (an 

incorrect original spelling of wallacii). 
wallacii, Paradisaea ( Semioptera ) , Gray, 1 859, Literary Gazette (new series), 39: 406 (incorrectly 

spelled as wallacei). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



171 



OPINION 1607 

Mus mmculus domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943 (Mammalia, 
Rodentia): specific name conserved 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that: 

(a) all uses of the specific name domesticus, published in combination with Mus 
Linnaeus, 1758, prior to its use by Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943, are hereby sup- 
pressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of 
Homonymy; 

(b) the specific name domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943, as published in the 
trinomen Mus musculus domesticus, is to be given precedence over all names, 
with the exception of musculus Linnaeus, 1758, that are considered to be 
synonyms of it. ■ -r 

(2) The name domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943, as published in the trinomen 
Mus musculus domesticus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over all names, with the 
exception of musculus Linnaeus, 1758, that are considered to be synonyms of it. 

(3) The name domesticus Rutty, 1 772, as published in the binomen Mus domesticus, 
is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology (a nomen nudum). ^ 

History of Case 2640 

An application for the conservation of Mus musculus domesticus Schwarz & 
Schwarz, 1943 (the western European house mouse) was received from Dr G.B. Corbet 
{The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, U.K.) on 26 January 1988. 
After correspondence the case was pubHshed in BZN 45: 214-215 (September 1988). 
Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 45: 215. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 21: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, CorHss, Hahn, Halvorsen, 
Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, 
Ride, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, WiUink 

Negative votes — 4: Holthuis, Lehtinen, Nye and Savage. - . * 

No vote was received from Starobogatov. - : . 

Dupuis and Mroczkowski abstained. 

Voting against, Holthuis, Lehtinen and Nye considered that the name domesticus 
Rutty, 1772 should have been ruled to be available; voting for, Thompson was of the 
same view. Heppell said that the Commission could have ruled that Mus domesticus 
Rutty, 1772 was to be interpreted in the sense of Schwarz & Schwarz (1943). Dupuis 
and Mroczkowski abstained because they considered the case needed more infor- 
mation and discussion. Supporting the application. Ride drew attention to the import- 
ance of there being designated a lectotype (or neotype) of the nominal species Mus 



172 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 



domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943, preferably a specimen of known karyotype. 
Savage would have supported the application if such a type had been designated. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion; 

domesticus, Mus, Rutty, 1772, An essay towards a natural history of the county of Dublin..., vol. 1 , 
p. 281. 

domesticus, Mus musculus, Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943, Journal of Mammalogy, 24: 65. 



Contents — continued 



Rulings of the Commission 

Opinion 1587. Orbitolina d'Orbigny, 1850 (Foraminiferida): Orbulites concava 

Lamarck, 1816 confirmed as the type species 141 

Opinion 1588. Hapalorhynchus beadlei Goodman, 1987 (Trematoda, Digenea): 

holotype replaced by a lectotype 143 

Opinion 1589. Phyllodoce (Carobia) rubiginosa Saint-Joseph, 1888 (currently also 

A^ere;/?/!!'//^? n/6/g/«05a; Annehda, Polychaeta); specific name conserved .... 144 
Opinion 1 590. Pleuromma princeps Scott, 1894 (currently Gaussia princeps; Crustacea, 

Copepoda): specific name conserved 145 

Opinion 1591. Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980 (Crustacea, Decapoda): 

Troglocarcinus heimi Fize & Serene, 1 956 confirmed as the type species 147 

Opinion 1592. Bodotria Goodsir, 1843 (Crustacea, Cumacea): conserved 148 

Opinion 1 593. Iphinoe Bate, 1 856 (Crustacea, Cumacea): conserved 1 50 

Opinion 1 594. Lez/co« Kroyer, 1846 (Crustacea, Cumacea): conserved 152 

Opinion 1595. Aleuropieryx Low, 1885 (Insecta, Neuroptera): Aleuropteryx loewii 

Klapalak, 1 894 designated as the type species 153 

Opinion 1 596. Semblis Fabricius, 1 775 (Insecta, Trichoptera): Phryganea phalaenoides 

Linnaeus, 1758 conserved as the type species, thus conserving Sialis Latreille, 1802 

(Insecta, Megaloptera) 154 

Opinion 1597. Coryphium angusticoUe Stephens, 1834 (Insecta, Coleoptera): generic 

and specific names conserved 1 56 

Opinion 1598. OphomisY)c']Qa.n, 1821 and TachysT)Q]Qnn, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera): 

Carabiis sabulicola Panzer, 1796 and Tachys scutellaris Stephens, 1828 designated as 

the respective type species 1 58 

Opinion 1599. Papilio carthami Hiibner, [1813] and Syrichthus serrandae major 

Staudinger, 1 879 (currently both in Pyrgus; Insecta, Lepidoptera): the specific names 

carthami and major conserved 1 60 

Opinion 1600. Tachina orbata Wiedemann, 1830 (currently Peribaea orbata; Insecta, 

Diptera): neotype designation confirmed 161 

Opinion 1601. Rapport sur les Myodaires du Docteur Robineau Desvoidy (1826): 

suppressed for nomenclatural purposes 162 

Opinion 1602. Tenthredo zonula Klug, 1817 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): specific name 

conserved 163 

Opinion 1603. Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824 (Osteichthyes, Saccopharyngiformes): 

conserved 1 64 

Opinion 1604. ichthyophiidae Taylor, 1968 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona): conserved . 166 
Opinion 1605. Thorius pennatulus Cope, 1869 (Amphibia, Caudata): specific name 

conserved 1 68 

Opinion 1606. Semioptera wallacii Gray, 1859 (Aves, paradisaeidae): conserved as the 

correct spelling of the generic and specific names 1 69 

Opinion 1607. Mus musculus domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943 (Mammalia, 

Rodentia): specific name conserved 171 

INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS f > 



Authors preparing papers for publication in the Bulletin should follow the instructions printed 
on the inside back cover of previous parts of the Bulletin. 



CONTENTS 

Page 

Notices 85 

Call for nominations for new members of the International Commission on Zoological 

Nomenclature 86 

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology-Supplement 87 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 87 

General Articles 

Bully for Brontosaurus. Stephen Jay Gould 88 

Family-group names in fishes: grammatical nicety or pragmatism? A plea for stability. 
Alwyne Wheeler 97 

Applications 

Helix (Helicigona) barbata Ferussac, 1832 (currently Lindholmiola barbata; Mollusca, 
Gastropoda): proposed confirmation of lectotype designation. D. Kadolsky . . . 101 

RissooiDEA (or RissoACEA) Gray, 1847 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed precedence 
over TRUNCATELLOiDEA (or truncatellacea) Gray, 1840. G. Rosenberg & G. M. 
Davis 104 

Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Anodonta anatina; Mollusca, Bivalvia): 
proposed designation of a neotype. P. B. Mordan & F. R. Woodward 110 

Griffithides Portlock, 1843 (Trilobita): proposed confirmation of Griffiihides longiceps 

Portlock, 1843 as the type species, so conserving Bollandia Reed, 1943. G. Hahn . 1 14 

Longitarsus symphyti Heikertinger, 1912 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation 
of the specific name. L. Borowiec 117 

Acanthophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1 824 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): pro- 
posed conservation, and proposed designation of Cobitis kuhlii Valenciennes in 
Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1846 as the type species. M. E. Burridge, D. J. Siebert & 

C. Ferraris 118 

Trionyx sinensis Wiegmann, 1 834 (Reptilia, Testudines): proposed conservation of the 

specific name. R. G. Webb 122 

Comments 

On the adoption of 'Protected Works' for purposes of zoological nomenclature. 

D. Frost 124 

On the proposed conservation of the generic name Myriochele Malmgren. 1867 

(Annelida, Polychaeta). R. T. Becker; A. Mackie & F. Pleijel; S. Chambers ... 124 
On the proposed precedence of Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901 (Arachnida, Araneae) over 

Rhechostica Simon, 1892. R. J. Raven 126 

On the proposed designation of Fonscolombia graminis Lichtenstein, 1877 as the type 

species of Fonscolombia Lichtenstein, 1877, with an additional proposal to suppress 

the names Tychea Koch, 1857 and T. graminis Koch, 1857 (Insecta, Homoptera). 

E. M. Danzig; P. K. Tubbs 127 

On the valid name for the butterfly known as 'Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905' 

or 'Colias australis Verity, 1911' (Insecta, Lepidoptera). L. B. Holthuis; E. J. 

Reissinger & S. Wagener; O. Kudrna; W. G. Tremewan; P. K. Tubbs 129 

On the proposed conservation ofheraclei as the correct spelling for the specific name of 

Musca heraclii Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Diptera). F. C. Thompson; I. M. White. . 132 
On the proposed conservation of Physcus Howard, 1895 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) by 

the suppression of Coccobius Ratzeburg, 1852. G. Gibson & J. Huber; G. Viggiani; 

D. Rosen; J. LaSalle 134 

On the need for stability in fish family-group names. N. Merrett 138 

On the proposed confirmation of Muraena Helena Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species 

of Muraena Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes, Anguilliformes), so conserving Anguilla. 

A. Wheeler; F. C. Thompson; R. A. Cooper 138 

On the proposed suppression for nomenclature of three works by R. W. Wells & C. R. 

Wellington. P. Bouchet, R. Bour, A. Dubois, D. Goujet, J. P. Hugot, J. Pierre & 

S.Tillier 139 

Continued on Inside Back Cover 

Primed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset 



Volume 47, Part 3, 28 September 1990 pp. 173-240 ISSN 0007-5167 



The 

Bulletin 

of 

Zoological 
Nomenclature 




ICZU^ jThe Official Periodical 
of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 



THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a 
charity (no. 21 1944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 1990 is £65 or 
$125, postage included; the rates for 1991 will be £70 or $135. All manuscripts, letters 
and orders should be sent to: 
The Executive Secretary, 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 
c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, 

London, SWT 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 071-938 9387) 



INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



Officers 
President 
Vice-President 
Secretary-General 
Executive Secretary 



Prof Dr O. Kraus {Fed. Rep. Germany) 
Dr H. G. Cogger {Australia) 
Dr I. W. B. Nye {United Kingdom) 
Dr P. K. Tubbs {United Kingdom) 



Members 

Dr F. M. Bdiytv {U.S.A.: Corallia) 
Prof W. J. Bock {U.S.A.; Ornithology) 
Dr L. R. M. Cocks {U.K.; Brachiopoda) 
Dr H. G. Cogger {Australia; Herpetology) 
Prof J. O. Corliss {U.S.A.; Protista) 
Prof C. Dupuis {France; Heteroptera) 
ProfDrG. Hahn 

{Fed. Rep. Germany; Trilobita) 
Prof Dr O. Halvorsen 

{Norway; Parasitology) 
Mr D. Heppell {U.K.; Mollusca) 
Dr L. B. Holthuis 

{The Netherlands; Crustacea) 
Dr Z. Kabata {Canada; Copepoda) 
ProfDrG. Kraus 

{Fed. Rep. Germany; Arachnology) 
Dr P. T. Lehtinen {Finland; Arachnology) 
Dr E. Macpherson {Spain; Crustacea) 



Dr V. Mahnert 

{Switzerland; Ichthyology) 
Prof U. R. Martins de Souza 

{Brazil; Coleoptera) 
Prof A. Minelli {Italy; Myriapoda) 
Dr M. Mroczkowski {Poland; Coleoptera) 
Dr C. Nielsen {Denmark; Bryozoa) 
Dr I. W. B. Nye {U.K.; Lepidoptera) 
Dr W. D. L. Ride {Australia; Mammalia) 
Prof J. M. Savage {U.S.A.; Herpetology) 
Prof Dr R. Schuster {Austria; Acari) 
Dr Y. I. Starobogatov 

{U.S.S.R.; Mollusca) 
Dr F. C. Thompson {U.S.A.; Diptera) 
Dr V. A. Trjapitzin 

{U.S.S.R.; Hymenoptera) 
Dr Shun-Ichi Ueno {Japan; Entomology) 
Prof A. Willink 

{Argentina; Hymenoptera) 



Secretariat 

Dr P. K. Tubbs {Executive Secretary and Editor) 

Mr J. D. D. Smith, B.Sc, B.A. {Scientific Administrator) 

Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. {Zoologist) 



Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 

Prof H. B. Whittington, F.R.S. {Chairman) 

Dr M. K. Howarth {Secretary and Managing Director) 

® International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1990 



BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



Volume 47, part 3 (pp. 173-240) . . 28 September 1990 



Notices 

(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised to vote on apphcations 
pubhshed in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their pubhcation, 
but this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Any 
zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to send his 
contribution to the Executive Secretary of the Commission as quickly as possible. 

(b) Invitation to contribute general articles. At present the Bulletin comprises mainly 
applications concerning names of particular animals or groups of animals, resulting 
comments and the Commission's eventual rulings (Opinions). Proposed amendments 
to the Code are also pubhshed for discussion. 

Articles or notes of a more general nature are actively welcomed provided that they 
raise nomenclatural issues, although they may well deal with taxonomic matters for 
illustrative purposes. It should be the aim of such contributions to interest an audience 
wider than some small group, of specialists. t . / ■ 

(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received 
since going to press for volume 47, part 2 (published on 29 June 1990): 

(1) Lepidomenia Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883 (Mollusca, Solenogastres): proposed 
confirmation of L. hystrix Marion & Kowalevsky in Marion, 1885 as the type 
species. (Case 2768). D. Heppell. 

(2) Laiocochlis Dunker & Metzger, 1874 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed 
conservation as the correct original speUing. (Case 2769). D. Heppell. 

(3) Homo lar Linnaeus, 1771 (currently Hylobates lar; Mammalia, Primates) and 
Hylobates entelloides GeoflFroy Saint-Hilaire, 1842: proposed conservation of 
the specific names. (Case 2770). P. D. Jenkins & CP. Groves. ' ^: 

(4) Amphiuma tridactylum Cuvier, 1827 (Amphibia, Caudata): proposed conser- 
vation of the specific name. (Case 2771). H.A. Dundee. 

(5) Dicerca Eschscholtz, 1829 and Chrysobothris Eschscholtz, 1829 (Insecta, 
Coleoptera): proposed conservation as the correct original spellings. (Case 

2772) . G.H. Nelson. 

(6) Schizopus LeConte, 1858 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. (Case 

2773) . G.H. Nelson. 

(7) Scatophaga Meigen, 1803 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation as the 
correct original speUing. (Case 2774). G.A. Parker. " ■ 

(8) Meladema Laporte, 1835 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. (Case 
2776). A.N. Nilsson. 

(9) Dytiscus biguttatus Olivier, 1795 (currently Agabus biguttatus; Insecta, 
Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2777). A.N. 
Nilsson. 



1 74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1 990 

(10) Asaphus eichwaldi Fischer de Waldheim in Eichwald, 1825 (currently Paladin 
eichwaldi; Trilobita): proposed conservation of neotype designation. (Case 
2778). G. Hahn. 

(11) Carabus mollisMarsham, 1 802 (currently Calathus mollis; Insecta, Coleoptera): 
proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2779). B. Aukema & M.L. 
Luff. 

(12) Ichthyosaurus trigonus Owen, 1840 (currently Macropterygius irigonus; 
Reptilia, Ichthyopterygia): proposed replacement of neotype by rediscoverd 
holotype. (Case 2779). E.E. Spamer & H.S. Torrens. 

(13) Platyscelis Latreille, 1818 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed designation of 
Tenebrio hypolithus Pallas, 1781 as the type species. (Case 2780). L.V. Egorov. 

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Crustacea and Mollusca 
Offprints 

As an experiment to assess the demand, the International Trust for Zoological 
Nomenclature is introducing a subscription for individual zoologists wishing to receive 
offprints of all cases in particular disciplines. For an annual payment of £15 or S25 
subscribers will receive copies of all Applications, Comments and Opinions relating to 
either the Crustacea or Mollusca as soon as they are published in the Bulletin of 
Zoological Nomenclature. This service will start with the present volume, but offprints 
are available back to 1980. 

Orders for offprints relating to either the Crustacea or the Mollusca should be sent to 
I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, 
U.K., with payment at the rate of £15 or $25 for each year requested. 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 

The Third Edition (pubhshed 1985) supersedes all earlier versions and incorporates 
many changes. 

Copies may be ordered from The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 
c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Price £ 1 9 
or $35 (postage included) or from the American Association for Zoological Nomen- 
clature, c/o NHB Stop 163, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 
20560 U.S.A. Price $35 ($32 to members of A.A.Z.N.). Payment should accompany 
orders. 

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in 
Zoology — Supplement 

The Ojficial Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology was published in 1 987. 
This book gives details of all the names and works on which the Commission has ruled 
since it was set up in 1895 up to 1985. There are about 9,900 entries. 

In the three years 1986-88, 544 names and three works have been added to the 
Official Lists and Official Indexes. A supplement has been prepared giving these 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



175 



additional entries, together with some amendments to entries in the 1987 volume. This 
supplement was circulated with Vol. 46, Part 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomencla- 
ture. Copies can be obtained without charge from either of the following addresses, 
from which the Ojficial Lists and Indexes can be ordered at the price shown (postage 
included). 

Payment should accompany orders. 

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History 
Museum, Cromwell Road, London SWT 5BD, U.K. Price £60 or $1 10 
or 

The American Association for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o NHB Stop 1 63, National 
Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Price $110 ($100 to 
members of A. A.Z.N. ). 



176 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



Case 2734 

Thalassochernes Beier, 1940 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): proposed 
designation of Chelifer taierensis With, 1907 as the type species 

Mark S. Harvey 

Western Australian Museum, Francis Street, Perth, Western Australia 6000, 
Australia 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is the designation of the nominal species 
Chelifer taierensisWiih, 1907 as the type species of the pseudoscorpion genus Thalasso- 
chernes Beier, 1940. In his definition of Thalassochernes, Beier had misidentified the 
species he was studying as Chelifer pallipes White, 1849. 



1. The first pseudoscorpion to be described from New Zealand, Chelifer pallipes 
White, 1849 (p. 6), was only briefly characterised by White, based upon an unstated 
number of specimens from an unnamed locality. C.J. With (1905, p. Ill) gave an 
amplified description, along with the first illustrations, of a specimen he regarded as 
the holotype in the British Museum (Natural History) collections, registration number 
BM 1845.93. 

2. Ellingsen (1910, p. 376) attributed three females from New Zealand (two from 
Stephen's Island and one without precise locality) to Chelifer pallipes White, 1849. 
Apparently basing his redescription on Ellingsen's material, Beier (1932. p. Ill) 
transferred C. pallipes to Haplochernes Beier, 1932 (p. 108). 

3. Beier (1940, p. 182) designated Chelifer pallipes as type species of his new genus 
Thalassochernes (p. 182) and attributed to this nominal species a further New Zealand 
specimen from Pitt Island. He subsequently identified further specimens from various 
localities in New Zealand as Thalassochernes pallipes (1948, p. 537; 1966, p. 369; 1967, 
p. 293). 

4. In 1 93 1 , Chamberlin (p. 29 1 ) established the genus Philomaoria, with type species 
Philomaoria novazealandica (p. 291), based on a number of specimens from New 
Brighton, New Zealand. 

5. In 1976, Beier (p. 241) transferred Chelifer pallipes (sensu With, 1905) to 
Philomaoria, declaring it to be a senior synonym of the type species Philomaoria 
novazealandica. 

6. In 1976, Beier (p. 215) attributed the specimens that had been identified as pallipes 
by Ellingsen (1910) and by himself (Beier, 1932, 1940, 1948, 1966, 1967) to Thalasso- 
chernes taierensis, originally published as Chelifer taierensis by With (1907, p. 55). Beier 
wrote: 'Ellingsen was responsible for the misinterpretation of Chelifer pallipes White, 
1 849, a species now placed in Philomaoria. Since 19321 have consistently used the name 
pallipes for the present species', i.e. Thalassochernes taierensis (With). 

7. It is clear that Thalassochernes Beier, 1940 was based upon a misidentified type 
species and the case is referred to the Commission under Article 70b to select a type 
species for Thalassochernes. The two options available have different ramifications: 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



177 



(1) to select the nominal species Chelifer pallipes, rendering Thalassochemes a junior 
subjective synonym of Philomaoria and leave Chelifer taierensis without a vahd generic 
name; and (2) to select the species actually in front of Beier (1940) (i.e. Chelifer 
taierensis), leaving Thalassochemes as a valid genus within the chernetidae. The 
second option would accord with current usage (e.g. Beier, 1976) and be in the interests 
of stability. 

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: . 

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous type species designations for the 
nominal genus Thalassochemes Beier, 1940 and to designate Chelifer taierensis 
With, 1907 as type species of the genus; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Thalasso- 
chemes Beier, 1940 (gender: masculine), type species as designated in (1) above 
Chelifer taierensis^[X\\,\901\ 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name taierensis 
With, 1907, as published in the binomen Chelifer taierensis (specific name of the 
type species of r/za/a550c/zern^5 Beier, 1940). • . 

References , _ ^. . 

Beier, M. 1932. Pseudoscorpionidea IL Subord. Cheliferinea. Tierreich, 58: 1-294. 

Beier, M. 1940. Die Pseudoscorpionidenfauna der landfernen Inseln. Zoologische Jahrbiicher, 

Abteilungfiir Systematik, Okologie und Geographie der Tiere, 74: 161-192. 
Beier, M. 1948. Uber Pseudoscorpione der Australischen Region. Eos, 24: 525-562. 
Beier, M. 1966. Zur Kenntnis der Pseudoscorpioniden-Fauna Neu-Seeiands. Pacific Insects, 8: 

363-379. 

Beier, M. 1967. Contributions to the knowledge of the Pseudoscorpionidea from New Zealand. 
Records of the Dominion Museum, 5: 277-303. 

Beier, M. 1976. The pseudoscorpions of New Zealand, Norfolk, and Lord Howe. New Zealand 
Journal of Zoology, y. 199-246. 

Chamberlin, J.C. 193 1 . A synoptic revision of the generic classification of the chelonethid family 
Cheliferidae Simon. (Arachnida). Canadian Entomologist, 63: 289-294. 

EUingsen, E. 1910. Die Pseudoskorpione des Berliner Museums. Mitteilungen aus dem Zoolog- 
ischen Museum in Berlin, 4: 357-423. 

White, A. 1849. Descriptions of apparently new species of Aptera from New Zealand. Proceed- 
ings of the Zoological Society of London, 17: 3-6. 

With, C.J. 1905. On Chelonethi, chiefly from the Australian region, in the collection of the 
British Museum, with observations on the 'coxal sac' and on some cases of abnormal 
segmentation. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (7)15: 94-143, 328. 

With, C.J. 1907. On some new species of the Cheliferidae, Hans., and Garypidae, Hans., in the 
British Museum. Journal of the Linnean Society. Zoology, 30: 49-85. 



178 

Case 2728 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



Artemia franciscana Kellogg, 1906 (Crustacea, Branchiopoda): proposed 
conservation of the specific name 

Denton Belk 

Biology Department, Our Lady of the Lake University of San Antonio, Texas 
78285, U.S.A. 

Sarane T. Bowen 

Department of Biology, San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway 
Avenue, San Francisco, California 94 132, U.S.A. 

Abstract. The purpose of this appHcation is to conserve the specific name of a broadly 
distributed North American species of brine shrimp, Artemia franciscana Kellogg, 
1906. The name is threatened by four senior subjective synonyms. 



1. Thompson (1834, p. 107) described the new genus and species Artemis guildingi 
on the basis of a single female specimen sent to him by the Reverend L. Guilding. The 
name Artemis is a junior homonym of Artemis Kirby & Spence, 1828 (Lepidoptera), 
and was presumably an unjustified emendation of Artemia Leach, 1819, since Thompson 
refers to ' Artemis salinus [sic], or Brine Shrimp' (cf. BZN 37: 224). Thompson's descrip- 
tion consists of the comments 'one female probable of this Genus' and 'biarticulate 
oviferous sac' along with two drawings, and he gave the locality as the West Indies. The 
current location of this specimen is unknown. Thompson's proposed name is included 
in published listings of the species of Artemia but has not otherwise been used. Daday 
(19 10, p. 1 1 7) placed it in the synonymy of Artemia salina (Linnaeus, 1 758, p. 634, from 
'Anglia'). The inadequacy of Thompson's description makes it impossible to identify 
his specimen even as to genus. This name is clearly a nomen dubium. 

2. Verrill (1869a, p. 248) described Artemia gracilis on the basis of specimens col- 
lected from large wooden tubs on a railroad bridge across an extensive salt marsh near 
New Haven, Connecticut. The water, which was much concentrated by evaporation, 
came from pools in the marsh. A search of the pools from which the water had been 
collected failed to produce any Artemia (Verrill, 1 869a, p. 234). Verrill's type material is 
in the Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, Connecticut (YPM No. 
396, 397). Packard (1883, p. 330) discussed four nominal species from the United States 
{Artemia gracilis YerhW, 1869a; A. monicaYernW, 1869a; A. fertilis Yernll, 1869b; and 
A. utahensis Lockington, 1876) and the European A. salina (Linnaeus, 1758), and 
enumerated what he considered species-specific morphological differences between the 
American species and the European Artemia salina. Regarding Verrill's species he 
stated I do not regard the difference he [Verrill] points out as more than individual', 
and placed Verrill's three species (together with utahensis with no explanation — one 
can only guess that he was influenced by the fact that both fertilis and utahensis were 



Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 ■ 179 

names for Artemia from the same lake; cf. para. 7) under the first cited available name, 
gracilis. Daday (1910, p. 117), influenced by work demonstrating that the rnorphology 
of Eurasian Artemia undergoes what at that time were considered taxonomically 
important changes when cultured at different salinities, synonymized the four nominal 
species from the United States under Artemia salina. Jensen (1918) and Relyea (1937), 
apparently unaware of Daday's synonymy since they did not cite his work, followed 
Packard in referring Artemia from Great Salt Lake, Utah, to A. gracilis. Bond (1933) 
found no relationship between salinity and morphology for Artemia from Monterey 
Bay, Cahfornia, and thus chose not to follow Daday's synonymy. 

3. Kellogg (1906, p. 596), stating there were three species of Artemia recognized in 
America {gracilis, fertilis and monica), described a new species, Artemia franciscana, 
from a salt works at Redwood City on the west shore of San Francisco Bay, California. 
Noting the closeness of the habitats. Bond (1933) tentatively referred the Monterey Bay 
Artemia to A. franciscana but did not refer to gracilis at all. The Monterey Bay popu- 
lation had previously been referred io A. franciscana by Martin & Wilber (1921) and to 
A. salina by Heath (1924). Keunen (1939) demonstrated reproductive isolation 
between Artemia from salt works near Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy, and at Monterey Bay. 
On the basis of these findings and others he reviewed, Keunen concluded that the 
American Artemia was specifically distinct from the European Artemia. He reviewed 
the nomenclatural history of the genus Artemia and on the basis of priority used 
A. gracilis Verrill, 1869 for the American species. He considered the clearly separate 
European species to be Artemia salina (Linnaeus, 1758). However, most other authors 
were unaware of or ignored Keunen's work and in general followed Daday (1910) in 
using the name A. salina for all populations of the genus Artemia. Undoubtedly the 
widely used keys of Pennak (1952, 1978) and Dexter ( 1 959) were largely responsible for 
the continued use in North America of the binomen Artemia salina. Belk (1975), 
unaware of Keunen's work, followed the pattern set by Pennak and Dexter in pubHshing 
a key to the Anostraca of North America. 

4. During the 1 960''s and 70's, Artemia came to be recognized as a complex of sibling 
species. Bowen et al. (1978), in a paper that cites the key works in the development of 
the concept of Artemia as such a complex, classified two identifiable North American 
sibUng species as A. monica Verrill, 1869 and A. franciscana Kellogg, 1906. The Great 
Salt Lake population, and also populations in the West Indies (cf. para. 1), were 
included in franciscana. Artemia monica is a clearly defined taxon endemic to only one 
unique salt lake and represents no nomenclatural problem. Since the publication of 
Bowen et al. (1978), A. franciscana has been generally and widely accepted as the name 
of the broadly distributed North American species of Artemia as illustrated in these ten 
papers, many of which are major reviews: Abreu-Grobois (1987), Bowen & SterUng 
(1978), Bowen et al. (1980), Browne & Bowen (in press), Eng et al. (1990), Hedgecock 
et al. (1982), Lenz (1987), Mura et al. (1989), Spotte & Anderson (1988) and Vanhaecke 
et al. (1987). A list of 17 other references demonstrating this general acceptance of 
franciscana is held in the office of the Secretariat. Correspondence in the Artemia 
Newsletter also evidences acceptance (Abreu-Grobois, 1989; Yaneng, 1989). Artemia 
workers find, as did Packard (1883, p. 330), that there are no morphological characters 
useful in separating Verrill's eastern United States gracilis from the western sibling 
species. The only examples of gracilis available for study are museum specimens. 
Natural habitats of gracilis are unknown. The Connecticut wooden tub type locality 



180 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



ceased to exist long ago, and there are no reports during this century of Artemia from 
states east of the Mississippi River. In the only early records, Verrill (1869b, p. 430) 
notes an observation of Artemia by Agassiz in salines on Cape Cod and another by 
G.H. Perkins in tubs on a railroad bridge near Boston, Massachusetts. Without live 
material, gracilis cannot be studied using the methods that lead to recognition of 
franciscana and monica, nor can it be compared with them. Thus the relationship of 
gracilis to the other sibling species remains unknown, and is at this time unresolvable. 
This lack of access to living gracilis left Bowen et al. (1978) with only one name that 
could be clearly and unequivocally assigned to the populations they studied — Artemia 
franciscana KeWogg, 1906. 

5. When Bowen et al. (1978) chose to apply the binomen A. franciscana Kellogg, 
1906 not only to Cahfornian material but also to the Great Salt Lake population of 
Artemia, the then current 1964 edition of the Code indicated in Article 23b that the 
name fertilis Verrill, 1869, unused since 1883, could be rejected as a nomen oblitum; the 
authors were unaware that this Article had been revoked from January 1973. 

6. Amat Domenech (1980) demonstrated morphological differences between 
Artemia from Europe and California. He identified the European species as Artemia 
salina (Linnaeus, 1758). He referred the American species to A. gracilis Verrill, 1869. 
However, his use of gracilis has not been followed by subsequent authors for reasons 
discussed in para. 4. 

7. Packard (1883, p. 330) included in his synonymy under A. gracilis the name 
A. utahensis Lockington, 1876. The Lockington reference Packard cites is a report of a 
paper that Lockington read before the San Francisco Microscopical Society. The 
report (p. 137) was most likely written by Henry Lawson, editor of the journal the 
report appears in. It is probable that Lockington, after giving his paper, learned that 
Verrill (1 869b) had already named the Great Salt Lake Artemia as fertilis, and so never 
pubHshed in full the description discussed at the San Francisco meeting. 

8. Although we are advocates of the Principle of Priority, it is our opinion that 
stability will best be served in this instance by suppression of the names guildingi, fertilis 
and utahensis which have not been used as senior synonyms since their original publi- 
cation. The first of these, guildingi, is based on an inadequate description of a single 
female, now lost. The other iw^o, fertilis and utahensis, were both described from the 
Great Salt Lake population which has been extensively studied and shown to be con- 
specific with A. franciscana on the basis of cross-fertility and similarity of isozyme 
patterns (Bowen, 1964; Clark & Bowen, 1967; Bowen & SterHng, 1978). Both names 
have remained unused since Packard (1883, p. 330) Hsted them as junior synonyms of 
A. gracilis. No author has even considered them enough to list them formally as 
synonyms of franciscana. There is currently a rapidly growing Hterature dealing with 
A. franciscana (cf. para. 4). The relationship of gracilis to franciscana is doubtful, as 
explained in para. 4. If at some future time this situation should change and the two 
names should be considered synonyms, assigning priority to gracilis would cause serious 
confusion because of the very extensive use of A. franciscana in a wide range of studies 
(see para. 4). 

9 . The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked : 
(1) to use its plenary powers: 

(a) to suppress the following names for the purposes of the Principle of Priority 
but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



181 



(i) guildingi Thompson, 1834, as published in the binomen Artemis 
guildingi; 

(ii) fertilis Verrill, 1869, as published in the binomen Artemia fertilis; 

(iii) utahensis Lockington, 1876, as published in the binomen Artemia 
utahensis; 

(b) to give precedence to the specific name franciscana Kellogg, 1906, as pub- 
lished in the binomen Artemia franciscana, over gracilis Verrill, 1869, as 
published in the binomen Artemia gracilis, whenever the two names are 
considered to be synonyms; 

(2) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) franciscana Kellogg, 1906, as published in the binomen Artemia franciscana, 
with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over gracilis Verrill, 
1869, as published in the binomen Artemia gracilis, whenever the two names 
are considered to be synonyms; 

(b) gracilis Verrill, 1869, as published in the binomen Artemia gracilis, with the 
endorsement that it is not to be given priority over franciscana Kellogg, 1906 
as published in the binomen Artemia franciscana, whenever the two names 
are considered to be synonyms; 

(3) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) guildingUhouvpson, 1834, as published in the binomen Artemis guildingi Sind 

as suppressed in ( 1 )(a)(i) above; 
(h) fertilis Verrill, 1869, as published in the binomen Artemia fertilis and as 

suppressed in (l)(a)(ii) above; 

(c) utahensis Lockington, 1876, as published in the binomen Artemia utahensis 
and as suppressed in (l)(a)(iii) above; 

Acknowledgement ; 

Our sincere thanks to Ruth A. Cooper for help and advice. ■ - 

References . \' > • 

Abreu-Grobois, F.A. 1987. A review of the genetics of Artemia. Pp. 61-99 In Sorgeloos, P., 
Bengtson, D.A., Decieir, W. & Jaspers, E. (Eds.), Artemia: Researci} and its applications, 
vol. 1. 359 pp. Universa Press, Belgium. 

Abreu-Grobois, F.A. 1 989. Observations and questions with regard io Artemia taxonomy. Artemia 
Newsletter, 12(April): 5-8. 

Amat Domenech, F. 1 980. Differentiation m Artemia strains from Spain. Pp. 1 9-39 in Persoone, G., 
Sorgeloos, P., Rods, O. & Jaspers, E. (Eds.). The brine shrimp Artemia, vol. 1. Morphology, 
genetics, radiobiology, toxicology. 318 pp. Universa Press, Belgium. 

Baird, W. 1 852. Monograph of the family Branchiopodidae, a family of crustaceans belonging to 
the division Entomostraca, with a description of a new genus and species of the family, and 
two new species belonging to the family Limnadidae. Proceedings of the Zoological Society 
of London, 1852: 18-37. 

Belk, D. 1975. Key to the Anostraca (Fairy Shrimps) of North America. The Southwestern 
Naturalist, 20:91-103. 

Bond, R.M. 1933. Observations on Artemia franciscana' Kellogg, especially on the relation of 
environment to morphology. Internationale Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie, 28: 11 7-1 25. 

Bowen, S.T. 1964. The genetics of Artemia salina. Part 4. Hybridization of wild populations with 
mutant stocks. Biological Bulletin, 126: 333-344. 



182 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



Bowen, S.T., Durkin, J.P., Sterling, G. & Clark, L.S. 1978. Artemia hemoglobins: Genetic 
variation in parthenogenetic and zygogenetic populations. Biological Bulletin, 155: 273-287. 

Bowen, S.T. & Sterling, G. 1978. Esterase and malate dehydrogenase isoenzyme polymorphisms 
in 15 Artemia populations. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 61B: 593-595. 

Bowen, S.T., Davis, M.L., Fenster, S.R. & Lindwall, G.A. 1980. Sibling species of Artemia. Pp. 
155-167 In Persoone, G., Sorgeloos, P., Roels, O. & Jaspers, E. (Eds.), The brine shrimp 
Artemia, vol. 1. Morphology, genetics, radiobiology, toxicology. 318 pp. Universa Press, 
Belgium. 

Browne, R.A. & Bowen, S.T. In press. Taxonomy and population genetics of Artemia. In Biology 
of Artemia. CRC Press. 

Clark, L. & Bowen, S.T, 1976. The genetics of Artemia salina. Part 7 (reproductive isolation). 

Journal of Heredity, 67: 385-388. 
Daday, E. 1910. Monographic systematique des Phyllopodes Anostraces. Annates des Sciences 

Naturelles, Zoologie, (9)11: 1 1 1^89. 
Dexter, R.W. 1959. Anostraca. Pp. 558-571 In Edmondson, W.T. (Ed.) Fresh-water biology, Ed. 

2. 1248 pp. Wiley & Sons, New York. 
Eng, L.L., Belk, D. & Eriksen, C.H. 1 990. California Anostraca: distribution, habitat, and status. 

Journal of Crustacean Biology, 10(2): 247-277. 
Heath, H. 1924. The external development of certain phyllopods. Journal of Morphology, 38: 

453-463. 

Hedgecock, D., Tracey, M.L. & Nelson, K. 1982. Genetics. Pp. 283^03 In Bliss, D.E. (Ed. -in- 
chief). The Biology of Crustacea, vol. 2, Abele, L.G. (Ed.), Embryology, morphology and 
genetics. 440 pp. Academic Press, New York. 

Jensen, A.C. 1918. Some observations on Artemia gracilis, the brine shrimp of Great Salt Lake. 
Biological Bulletin, M: 18-33. 

Kellogg, V.L. 1906. A new Artemia and its life conditions. Science, (n.s.)24: 594-596. 

Kuenen, D.J. 1939. Systematical and physiological notes on the brine shrimp Artemia. Archives 
Neerlandaises de Zoologie, 3: 365^49. 

Lenz, P.H. 1987. Ecological studies on Artemia: a review. Pp. 5-17 In Sorgeloos, P., Bengtson, 
D.A., Decleir, W. & Jaspers, E. (Eds.), Artemia.- Research and its applications, vol. 3. 535 pp. 
Universa Press, Belgium. 

Lockington, W. 1876. [A new Phyllopodous Crustacean], in [Lawson, H.] (Ed.), The Monthly 
Microscopical Journal: Transactions of the Royal Microscopical Society, and Record of 
Histological Research at Home and Abroad, 15: 137. 

Martin, E.G. & Wilbur, B.C. 1921. Salt antagonism in Artemia. American Journal of Physiology, 
55: 290-291. 

Mura, G., Del Caldo, L. & Fanfani, A. 1989. Sibling species of Artemia: a light and electron 
microscopic survey of the morphology of the frontal knobs. Part 1. Journal of Crustacean 
Biology, 9:414^19. 

Packard, A.S. Jr. 1883. A monograph of the phyllopod Crustacea of North America with 
remarks on the order Phyllocarida. Twelfth Annual Report of the U.S. Geological and 
Geographical Survey of the Territories: A Report of Progress of the Exploration in Wyoming 
and Idaho for the Year 1878. (F.V. Haydn, U.S. geologist). Part 1, section 2, pp. 295-592, 
39 pis. 

Pennak, R.W. 1952. Fresh-water invertebrates of the United States. Wiley & Sons, New York. 
Pennak, R.W. 1978. Fresh-water invertebrates of the United States. Ed. 2. 803 pp. Wiley & Sons, 
New York. 

Relyea, G.M. 1937. The brine shrimp of Great Salt Lake. The American Naturalist, 71: 612-616. 
Spotte, S. & Anderson, G. 1988. Chemical decapsulation of resting cysts of the anostracans 

Artemia franciscana and Streptocephalus seali as revealed by scanning electron microscopy. 

Journal of Crustacean Biology, 8: 221-231. 
Thompson, J.V. 1834. Development of Artemis salinus, or Brine Shrimp; demonstrative of its 

relationship to Branchipus and other Crustaceous Phyllopoda, and to those enigmatic 

Fossils, the apparently eyeless Trilobites... with a new species of Artemis and Apus. 

Zoological Researches and Illustrations 1828-1834, Vol. 1, part 1, memoir 6. Pp. 103-1 12, 6 

pis. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



183 



Vanhaecke, P., Tackaert, W. & Sorgeloos, P. 1987. The biogeography oi Artemia: an updated 

review. Sorgeloos, P., Bengtson, D.A., Decleir, W. & Jaspers, E. (Eds.), Artemia.- Research 

and its applications, vol. 1 . 359 pp. Universa Press, Belgium. 
Verrill, A.E. 1 869a. Descriptions of some new American Phyllopod Crustacea. American Journal 

of Science and Arts, (2)48: 244^254. 
Verrill, A.E. 1869b. New localities of Artemia. American Journal of Science and Arts, (2)48: 430. 
Yaneng, C. 1989. New Artemia sibling species from PR China. Artemia Newsletter, ll(January): 

40-41. 



184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 

Case 2720 



Dalla Mabille, 1904 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation 

Stephen R. Steinhauser, Lee D. Miller & Jacqueline Y. Miller 

Allyn Museum of Entomology , The Florida Museum of Natural History, 
3621 Bay Shore Road, Sarasota, Florida 34234, U.S.A. 

Charles A. Bridges 

502 West Main Street, Apt. 308, Urbana, Illinois 61801, U.S.A. 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Dalla Mabille, 1 904 
for a hesperiid (skipper) butterfly genus by suppression of the seldom used senior 
subjective synonym Eumesia Felder & Felder, [1867]. 



1. In 1867, Felder & Felder established a new genus Eumesia (p. 504) with a single 
nominal species semiargentea (p. 505) which is, therefore, the type species by mono- 
typy. The species was based on a hesperiid specimen from Colombia with the attached 
head of a satyrid butterfly. The specimen, which they failed to recognize as an artefact, 
is now in the British Museum (Natural History) collections, registered as Rothschild 
Bequest, BM 1939-1, type no. H-1098. Felder & Felder ([1867], p. 504) also proposed a 
new family eumeshdae as an intermediate familial group between hesperiidae and 
SATYRID AE, an action resulting only from their failure to recognize the composite nature 
of the holotype. 

2. In 1904, Mabille (p. 107) established a new genus Dalla in which he placed 47 
species (eight of which he had not seen and two of which he listed as of uncertain status) 
plus five additional names as synonyms. He (p. 108) recognized Eumesia as a valid 
genus with semiargentea as the sole species, but did not make clear what he considered 
to be the significant diff'erence between Eumesia and Dalla. Mabille & BouUet (1908, 
1912, 1919) never finished their revision of the hesperiidae, and their treatment of 
Eumesia and Dalla was not stated. Lindsey (1921, p. 58) designated Cyclopides eryonas 
Hewitson, 1877 (p. 325) as the type species of Dalla. 

3. Evans (1955, p. 19) was the first worker to recognize the synonymy of Eumesia 
and Dalla. His action is described by Hemming (1967, p. 177) in the following terms: 

'Evans treated this generic name [Eumesia] in a strange and entirely incorrect 
manner. He accepted the nominal species Eumesia semiargentea as representing a 
taxonomically distinct species. In spite of this he rejected the generic name Eumesia 
on the ground that the holotype of its type species {Eumesia semiargentea) now in 
the British Museum was a specimen which had lost its head and on which in place 
of the missing head the head of some Satyrid species had been gummed. Evans's 
ground for rejecting this generic name was that the substitution of this false head 
on the holotype vitiated the generic diagnosis given by the authors of this name. 
This action was misconceived, there being nothing in the Code to authorize the 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



185 



rejection of a generic name on such grounds. Moreover, Evans's contention was 
incorrect in fact, for only part of the original diagnosis was concerned with the 
characters of the head. Quite apart from this consideration, Evans forgot that 
prior to 193 1 it was not necessary for an author to provide any diagnosis for a new 
genus, provided that he included in the genus one or more duly established 
nominal species. This condition was duly complied with by the authors of this 
generic name. The name Eumesia is therefore an available name, and accordingly 
Evans's action in rejecting it was invalid'. 
Hemming (1967) did not himself comment on the possible subjective synonymy of 
Eumesia and Dalla. He treated both Eumesia (p. 1 77) and Dalla (p. 1 38) as valid generic 
names, although he did not consider the taxonomy. 

4. Bridges (1983 (II), pp. 13, 14; 1988b (II), p. 22) accepted Hemming's treatment of 
Eumesia as an available name. He recognized Eumesia as a senior synonym of Dalla 
and placed in Eumesia all the species that Evans (1955, pp. 18-44) had included in 
Dalla, including its type species eryonas. However, he did Ust under Dalla (1983 (II), 
p. 1 1; 1988b (II), p. 18) four names published since Evans' work, but this inconsistent 
action was a simple 'lapsus', understandable in such a massive undertaking. Bridges 
(1988c (5), pp. 1-6), having seen the proposals to the Commission in a draft of this 
application, has emended his earlier treatment and placed all relevant taxa (including 
semiargentea) in Dalla, eliminating Eumesia completely. He has asked to be included as 
a co-author of this application. 

5. Since its publication in 1867, the name Eumesia has been used exclusively in 
conjunction with its type species semiargentea with two exceptions: Erschoff (1876, pp. 
140-149, pi. 3, fig. 6) who described Eumesia jelskyi, and Bridges (1983, 1988b) as set 
out in para. 4 above. Dalla, on the other hand, has been used since 1904 in the descrip- 
tion of new species by at least eight authors in ten separate publications (e.g. Dalla 
seirocastnia Draudt, [1923], p. 923; Dalla frontinia Evans, 1955, pp. 25-26; Dalla pota 
Bell, 1959, p. 1) as well as in a number of catalogue-type compilations. 

6. The family-group name eumesiidae Felder & Felder, [1867] has not been used 
since its description in any of the relevant taxonomic literature or in any catalogue- 
type compilations. It is a senior subjective synonym of heteropterinae Aurivillius, 
1925 (pp. 506, 546) which is based on the well known Palearctic genus Heteropterus 
Dumeril, 1806 (p. 271). heteropterinae has been used by a number of authors includ- 
ing Aurivillius (see above); Higgins, 1975, p. 51; Miller & Brown, 1981, p. 26; Bridges, 
1988a (II), p. 1. 

7. To reintroduce usage of the generic name Eumesia and the family-group name 
eumesiidae would not be in the interests of nomenclatural stability. This family-group 
name would cease to be available on suppression of the name of the type genus, 
Eumesia: 

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Eumesia Felder & Felder, 
[1867] for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the 
Principle of Homonymy; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Dalla 
Mabille, 1904 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by 
Lindsey (1921) Cyclopides eryonas Hewitson, 1877; 



186- 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name eryonas 
Hewitson, 1877, as published in the binomen Cyclopides eryonas (specific name 
of the type species of Dalla Mabille, 1904); 

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 
the name Eumesia Felder & Felder, [1867], as suppressed in (1) above; 

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in 
Zoology the name eumesiidae Felder & Felder, [1867] (type genus Eumesia 
Felder & Felder, [1867]) (name of the type genus suppressed in (1) above). 

References 

Aurivillius, P.O.C. 1925. Family Hesperidae in Seitz, A., (Ed.), The Macrolepidoptera of the 

World. Vol. 13. 613 pp. Kernan, Stuttgart. 
Bell, E.L. 1959. Descriptions of some new species of Neotropical Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera: 

Rhopalocera). American Museum Novitates, No. 1962: 1-16. 
Bridges, C.A. 1 983. Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae, Notes on species-group names. (I): 1-1 29; (II): 2-4 1 ; 

(III): 1-62; (IV): 1-30; (V): 1-13. Privately published, Urbana. 
Bridges, C.A. 1988a. Catalogue of family-group and genus-group names (Lepidoptera: 

Rhopalocera). (I): 1-8; (II): 1-3; (III): 1^; (IV): 1-130; (V): 1-33; (VI): 1-67; (VII): 1-18; 

(VIII): 1-59; (IX): 1-20; (X): 1-8. Privately published, Urbana. 
Bridges, C.A. 1988b. Catalogue of Hesperiidae ( Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera). (I): 1-205; (II): 1-67; 

(III): 1-78; (IV): 1-54; (V): 1-20; (VI): 1-7; (App. I): 1; (App. II): 1-8. Privately published, 

Urbana. 

Bridges, C.A. 1988c. Annotations on the Catalogue of Hesperiidae. (l): 1;(2): 1;(3): 1^; (4): 1-2; 

(5): 1-6. Privately published, Urbana. 
Draudt, M. [1923]. Family Hesperidae in Seitz, A. (Ed.), The Macrolepidoptera of the World, 5: 

836-1011, 1046-1055. Kernan, Stuttgart. 
Dumeril, A.M.C. 1 806. Zoologie Analytique, ou Methode naturelle de Classification des Animaux. 

344 pp. Allais, Paris. 

Erschoff, N.G. 1876. [Descriptions of new species of exotic Lepidoptera]. Trudy Russkago 

Entomologicheskago Obshchestva, 8: 140-149. [In Russian.] 
Evans, W.H. 1955. A Catalogue of the American Hesperiidae in the British Museum (Natural 

History). Part 4: Hesperiinae and Megathyminae. 499 pp. British Museum, London. 
Felder, C. & Felder, R. 1865-1867. Rhopalocera, in Reise der Osterreichischen Fregatte 'Novara' 

um die Erde. 549 pp. Der Kaiserlich-Koniglichen Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, Wien. 
Hemming, F. 1967. The generic names of the butterflies and their type species (Lepidoptera: 

Rhopalocera). Bulletin of the British Museum ( Natural History). Entomology, Supplement 

9: 1-509. 

Hewitson, W.C. 1877. Descriptions of twenty three new species of Hesperidae from his own 

collection. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (4)20: 3 19-328. 
Higgins, L.G. 1975. The Classification of European Butterflies. 320 pp. Collins, London. 
Lindsey, A.W. 1921 . The Hesperioidea of America North of Mexico. University of Iowa Studies in 

Natural History, 9(4): 1-114. 
Mabille, P. 1904. Lepidoptera Rhopalocera. Fam. Hesperidae. Genera Insectorum, 17: 1-210. 
Mabille, P. & Boullet, E. 1908. Essai de revision de la famille des Hesperides. Annales des Sciences 

Naturelles Zoologie, (9)7: 167-207. 
Mabille, P. & Boullet, E. 1912. Essai de revision de la famille des Hesperides. 2. Subfamily 

Hesperiinae. Annales des Sciences Naturelles Zoologie, (9)16: 1-1 59. 
Mabille, P. & Boullet, E. 1919. Essai de revision de la famille des Hesperides. Annales des Sciences 

Naturelles Zoologie, (10)2: 199-258. 
Miller, L.D. & Brown, P.M. 1981. A catalogue! checklist of the butterflies of America north of 

Mexico. 280 pp. The Lepidopterists' Society, Memoir No. 2, Sarasota, Florida. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 187 

Case 2712 , ' ' ' 

^-^ ■ I ; ■ , ■ ■ ■' ,- ' ■' . ; ■ I ^ S" ' ■ ■ ; 

Calliphora vicina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed 
conservation of the specific name 

Knut Rognes ' • 

Stavanger Lcerh0gskole, Postboks 2521 Ullandhaug, N-4004 Stavanger, ■ 

Norway ; 

Robert E. Blackith ' ' ^ 

University of Dublin, Trinity College, Department of Zoology, Dublin-2, 
Ireland , ; , . . , ..... . , 

Abstract. The purpose of this apphcation is to conserve the specific name of Calliphora 
vicina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, a cosmopolitan bluebottle fly now widely known 
under this name. The name is threatened by Musca carnivora Fabricius, 1 794, a senior 
synonym, but unused since its proposal. The fly is often referred to as Calliphora 
erythrocephala (Meigen, 1826), but this specific name is a junior primary homonym. 



1 . The blowfly Calliphora vicina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (p. 435) is very common 
and widely distributed throughout the Holarctic Region, and has followed man into 
South America, the Afrotropical region (Mauritius and South Africa), northern India, 
Australia and New Zealand. It is a widely known and easily bred laboratory insect of 
great medical, veterinary and forensic importance (Zumpt, 1965; Greenberg, 1971, 
1 973, 1985; Smith, 1986). It is one of the few insects to have whole monographs devoted 
to it (references in Smith, 1986, p. 105) and some 900 scientific publications have been 
based on this species, mostly in the field of insect physiology and genetics. 

2. Until 1948 the fly was known under the specific name erythrocephala Meigen, 
1 826 (p. 62). However, Hall ( 1 948, pp. 307-308) pointed out that Musca erythrocephala 
Meigen was a junior primary homonym of M. erythrocephala De Geer, 1776 (p. 146) 
and M. erythrocephala Fabricius, 1787 (p. 351) and therefore an invalid name. There 
is also a species given the replacement name Musca erythrocephala by Villers (1789, 
p. 137). Meigen's name is therefore preoccupied several times over. The identity of 
De Geer's, Fabricius's and Villers's species is not known with certainty, but they are 
definitely species other than Calliphora vicina. Hah (1948), acting as first reviser, 
selected the name vidua Robineau-Desvoidy, 1 830, one of several next oldest available 
synonyms by Robineau-Desvoidy that were listed by Bezzi & Stein (1907). At present 
the species is universally known in the taxonomic literature (as opposed to the applied 
Hterature, see para. 3) under the name v/cma (Hall, 1965; James, 1970, 1977; Pont, 1980; 
Hardy, 1981; Schumann, 1986; Rognes, 1990). Dear (1986, p. 26) recovered and 
labelled the holotype of Calliphora vicina Robineau-Desvoidy in Bigot's Diptera 
Exotica collection in Oxford. 

3. Since 1940 some 680 publications based on this insect and hsted by Biological 
Abstracts have used the specific name erythrocephala. The name vicina first appeared in 



188 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



the Zoological Record in 1948 and in Biological Abstracts in 1956. In the first decade 
after 1956 three pubHcations used vicina whereas 79 used erythrocephala, and since then 
78 have used vicina whereas 586 used erythrocephala. In very recent years the two names 
have been used about equally. For four decades this insect has therefore been known, 
de facto, by two specific names. Research papers using one name have appeared with 
those using the other in the same journals, often in the same volume of a journal, 
suggesting that some people (including editors) believe that two species are involved. 
Patently, the editors of non-taxonomic journals have been unable to give appropriate 
guidance (a fact thrown into relief by the use of garbled versions of these names such as 
'erythroencephala\ 'vincina' and 'vicinid' reported as such in Biological Abstracts for 
1979 and 1987). 

4. Musca carnivora Fabricius, 1 794 (p. 3 1 3) was listed by Bezzi & Stein ( 1 907, p. 546) 
and Schumann (1986, p. 18) as a synonym of Calliphora vomitoria (Linnaeus, 1758). 
The holotype of carnivora is present in the Fabrician collection (Kiel collection) in the 
Universitetets Zoologiske Museum in Copenhagen. It has recently been examined 
(Rognes, 1990) and found to be a specimen of Calliphora vicina. The name carnivora 
has never been used since its proposal. 

5. According to the Principle of Priority the specific name carnivora Fabricius 
should replace vicina Robineau-Desvoidy. However, this replacement is likely to 
produce even further confusion and instability as regards the nomenclature of this 
fly species than did the replacement of erythrocephala. Considering the very slow 
acceptance of the name vicina since 1948 (see para. 3), the introduction of a third name 
for this species is likely to be even less successful. The chances are microscopic or nil 
that carnivora would be universally adopted in the foreseeable future. There are even 
ample reasons to believe that, outside the field of taxonomy, a third name may lead to a 
mistaken belief in the existence of yet another species, in the same manner as some 
editors today apparently believe that erythrocephala and vicina are two diflTerent 
species. Utter chaos and confusion would almost certainly be the outcome of the 
introduction of carnivora. 

6. There also seems to be no good reason today to reinstate the name erythrocephala 
for this species by suppressing its senior homonyms, in view of the universal acceptance 
of vicina in the taxonomic literature and the growing adherence to the name vicina in the 
applied literature. 

7. The name vicina will possibly be threatened also in the future by other older 
(pre- 1 830) names. However, we are convinced that the best course to follow to remedy 
the confused present state of affairs in the applied literature and to lay the foundations 
for a stable nomenclature in the future is to conserve the name vicina. 

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: 

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name carnivora Fabricius, 1 794, 
as published in the binomen Musca carnivora, for the purposes of the Principle of 
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name vicina 
Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, as published in the binomen Calliphora vicina; 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and InvaUd Specific Names in Zoology 
the following names: 

(a) carnivora Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Musca carnivora and 
as suppressed in (1) above; 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



189 



(b) erythrocephala Meigen, 1 826, as published in the binomen Musca erythro- 
cephala (a junior primary homonym of Musca erythrocephala De Geer, 
1776). _ . . . 

Acknowledgements 

We would hke to thank T. Pape, A.C. Pont, C.W. Sabrosky, G.E. Shewell and 
J.R. Vockeroth for having read and commented upon previous drafts of the paper, and 
A.C. Pont for information concerning species originally described in the genus Musca 
and for support. 



References - ' V-^-' • ■ 

Bezzi, M. & Stein, P. 1907. Cyclorrapha Aschiza. Cyclorrapha Schizophora: Schizometopa. In 
Becker, Th., Bezzi, M., Kertesz, K. & Stein, P. (Eds.), Katalog der paldarktischen Dipteren, 
vol. 3. 828 pp. Budapest. 

De Geer, C. 1776. Memoires pour servir a I'histoire des Insectes, vol. 6. viii, 523 pp. Hesselberg, 
Stockholm. 

Dear, J.P. 1986. Calliphoridae (Insecta: Diptera). Fauna of New Zealand, vol. 8. 86 pp. 
Fabricius, J.C. 1787. Mantissa insect orum..., vol. 2. 382 pp. Hafniae. 

Fabricius, J.C. 1794. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta vol. 4. 472 pp. Hafniae. 
Greenberg, B. 1971. Flies and disease, vol. 1 (Ecology, classification and biotic associations). 

856 pp. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 
Greenberg, B. 1973. Flies and disease, vol. 2 (Biology and disease transmission). 447 pp. 

Princeton University Press, Princeton. 
Greenberg, B. 1985. Forensic entomology: case studies. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of 

America, 31: 25-28. 

Hall, D.G. 1948. The blowflies of North America. 483 pp. Thomas Say Foundation. Lafayette, 
Indiana. 

Hall, D.G. 1965. Family Calliphoridae. Pp. 922-932 in Stone, A., Sabrosky, C.W., Wirth, W.W., 

Foote, R.H., & Coulson, J.R. (Eds.), A catalog of the Diptera of America north of Mexico. 

Agriculture Handbook No. 276. iv, 1696 pp. Washington. D.C. 
Hardy, D.E. 1981. Diptera: Cyclorrhapha 4, Series Schizophora Section Calyptratae. Insects of 

Hawaii, vol. 14. vi, 491 pp. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu. 
James, M.T. 1970. Family Calliphoridae. In Papavero, N. (Ed.), A catalogue of the Diptera of the 

Americas south of the United States, vol. 102. 28 pp. Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de 

Sao Paulo. 

James, M.T. 1977. Family Calliphoridae. Pp. 526-556 in Delfinado, M.D. & Hardy, D.E. (Eds.), 
A catalog of the Diptera of the Oriental Region, vol. 3. (Suborder Cyclorrhapha (excluding 
division Aschiza.) x, 854 pp. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu. 

Meigen, J.W. 1826. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen zweifliigeligen 
Insekten, vol. 5. xii, 412 pp. Schultz, Hamm. 

Pont, A.C. 1980. 90. Family Calliphoridae. Pp. 779-800 in Crosskey, R.W. (Ed.), Catalogue 
of the Diptera of the Afrotropiccd Region. 1437 pp. British Museum (Natural History), 
London. 

Robineau-Desvoidy, A.J.B. 1830. Essai sur les Myodaires. Memoires presentes par divers savants 

a r Academic des Sciences de I'lnstiutt de France, (2) 2: 1-813. 
Rognes, K. 1990. Blowflies (Diptera, Calliphoridae) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. Fauna 

entomologica scandinavica, vol. 24. E.J. Brill, Leiden. [In press.] 
Schumann, H. 1986. Family Calliphoridae. Pp. 1 1-58 in Soos, A. & Papp, L. (Eds.), Catalogue of 

Palaearctic Diptera, vol. 12. (Calliphoridae — Sarcophagidae). 265 pp. Akademiai Kiado, 

Budapest. 



190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 

Smith, K.G.V. 1986. A manual of forensic entomology. 205 pp. British Museum (Natural 
History), London. 

Villers, C.J. de. 1789. Caroli Linnaei entomologia, faunae suecicae descriptionibus aucta... Tomi 

III (Nomenclator entomologus). 213 pp. Lugduni. 
Zumpt, F. 1965. Myiasis in man and animals in the Old World. A textbook for physicians, 

veterinarians and zoologists, iv, 267 pp. Butterworths, London. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 191 

Case 2722 . --r-^r-:, ./^ , ... = ,v 

Rivulus mavmoratus Poey, 1880 (Osteichthyes, Cyprinodontiformes): 
proposed conservation of the specific name 

Kenneth J. Lazara ' , ' ' . 

Department of Mathematics and Science, U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, 
Kings Point, New York 11024, U.S.A. 

Michael L. Smith . _ ' 

American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, 
New York, N.Y. 10024, U.S.A. , , , ^ ^ . . - 

Abstract. The purpose of this appUcation is to conserve the specific name of Rivulus 
marmoratus Poey, 1880 for a self-fertiHsing hermaphroditic kilhfish. The name is 
threatened by the senior subjective synonym ocellatus Hensel, 1868. Through mis- 
identification the latter name has been used for a second species, which is correctly 
named cawi/owflrgmato Seegers, 1984. ■■S-.^y'l-'^-ryi.., . ' 



1. In 1880 Poey (p. 248) described Rivulus marmoratus on the basis of specimens 
from Cuba or the U.S.A. (he was uncertain of their origin). Rivas (1945) identified 
two specimens labeled Rivulus cylindraceus in the collection of the United States 
National Museum as R. marmoratus; using circumstantial evidence he stated that 
these specimens were Poey's original type specimens, and of these specimens designated 
as lectotype specimen USNM 37429. We do not accept Rivas's assertion that this 
specimen is a syntype and believe the types have been lost. This does not aflfect the case. 

2. The species is distributed in marginal marine and semi-terrestrial habitats from 
southern Florida, U.S.A., through the Caribbean basin to the southern coast of Brazil. 
It is widely used in experimental studies because it is easily manipulated in the labora- 
tory and because it is the only fish that is a self-fertilising hermaphrodite. This has 
led to the development of clones which, being genetically uniform, provide a control 
for genetic variation in numerous studies involving carcinogenicity, mutagenesis, 
teratogenesis and other areas of environmental research. 

3. The species has been listed consistently as R. marmoratus in the American 
Fisheries Society's fist of names (Robins et al., 1980, p. 33, and the earlier editions 
of 1960 and 1970) and marmoratus is the only name appHed to the species in the 
experimental and genetic literature prior to Seegers, 1984 (see para. 4 below). Reports 
which have used the name, in a variety of disciphnes, include Rivas, 1945 (species 
characteristics); Parenti, 1981, pp. 482-483 (systematics); Harrington & Rivas, 1958 
(distribution and ecology); Koenig et al., 1982 (value as an experimental subject); 
Mittwoch, 1973 (genetics); Harrington, 1975 (sex determination); Massaro et al., 1975 
(isozymes); Snelson, 1978 (conservation status); Davis, 1986 (use as a pollution 
indicator); Park & Kim, 1984 (response to diethylnitrosamine), Abel et al., 1988 
(response to hydrogen sulfide); Park & Lee, 1988 (scale growth); Lindsey, 1988 



192 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



(meristic variation); Ali et al., 1988 (microanatomy of photoreceptors). The name is 
used by conservationists monitoring endangered populations and the general public 
interested in the species' unique life history. It is therefore familiar to many non- 
systematists working with Recent fishes. A list of a further 100 references is held by the 
Commission Secretariat. 

4. The name Rivulus ocellatus was proposed by Hensel in 1868 (p. 365) for a fish 
from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The holotype, cat. no. ZMB 7448, is in the Zoologisches 
Museum der Humboldt-Universitat, Berlin (Seegers, 1984, p. 302). The species was 
known only from the single specimen for 1 1 6 years and has rarely been mentioned other 
than by misidentification (see para. 6 below), although it occurs in the following few 
faunal lists and lists of synonymies: Eigenmann & Eigenmann (1891, p. 64), Garman 
(1895, p. 137), Eigenmann (1910, p. 454), Regan (1912, p. 497), Myers (1927, p. 125), 
von Ihering (1931, p. 261), Fowler (1954, p. 222), and Hoedeman (1956, p. 199; 1959, 
pp. 49, 52; 1961, p. 65). In 1984 Seegers identified and studied an aquarium stock from 
Rio de Janeiro and concluded that ocellatus and marmoratus are conspecific. He 
adopted the prior name ocellatus in accord with the Principle of Priority but contrary to 
the general acceptance of marmoratus as the long-established name for the taxon. 

5. A few authors (Thyagarajah & Grizzle, 1986; Grizzle & Thyagarajah, 1987; Park 
& Yi, 1989) have used the trinomen R. ocellatus marmoratus, citing Seegers (1984) as 
the source. Seegers (p. 304) actually stated that the trinomen could be used only if 
subspecies were found in the future. No one has suggested that differences exist to 
justify use of subspecific names. 

6. In 1906 Kohler (p. 407, fig. on p. 406) reported the import of a fish that he 
identified as R. ocellatus Hensel, 1868 and which has since become known under that 
name. Seegers (1984, p. 302) found that this fish did not agree with the description of 
ocellatus and proposed a new specific name, caudomarginatus. Of the few known papers 
that use the name ocellatus, most use it as a misidentification sensu Kohler; these are 
Bogershausen (1910, p. 317), Regan (1912, p. 497, in part), Dreiser (1922, p. 222), 
von Ihering (1931, p. 261, in part), Innes (1932, p. 247), Stoye (1935, p. 107 and pi. 47), 
Arnold & Ahl (1936, p. 342), Rachow (undated, no. 641), Fowler (1954, p. 222, in part), 
Hoedeman (1956, p. 119; 1959, p. 44; 1961, p. 70), Terceira (1974, p. 115), Seegers 
(1980, p. 141) and Sterba (1983, p. 500). Thus, through the misidentifications cited 
above, the name ocellatus is associated with a fish other than marmoratus. 

7. We believe that to upset 109 years of extensive usage of the name Rivulus 
marmoratus would be a disservice to users of the biological literature. Article 23(b) of 
the Code states that the Principle of Priority is to be used to promote stability and 
should not be used to overturn a long accepted name in its accustomed meaning. 

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name ocellatus Hensel, 1 868, as 
published in the binomen Rivulus ocellatus, for the purposes of the Principle of 
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name 
marmoratus Poey, 1880, as published in the binomen Rivulus marmoratus; 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology 
the specific name ocellatus Hensel, 1 868, as published in the binomen Rivulus 
oce//arM.s and as suppressed in (1) above. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 193 

References ' * 

Abel, D.C., Koenig, C.C. & Davis, W.P. 1987. Emersion in the mangrove forest fish Rivuliis 
marmoratus: a unique response to hydrogen sulfide. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 18( 1 ): 
67-72. 

Ali, M.A., Klyne, M.A., Park, E.H. & Lee, S.H. 1988. Pineal and retinal photoreceptors in 
embryonic Rivulus marmoratus Poey. Anatomischer Anzeiger, 167(5): 359-369. 

Arnold, J.P. & Ahl, E. 1936. Fremdlandische Siisswasserfische. 592 pp. Wenzel & Sohn, 
Braunschweig. 

Bogershausen, W. 1910. Etwas vom Rivulus ocellatus. Wochenschrift fur Aquarien- unci 

Terrarienkunde, 7(23): 317-318. 
Davis, W.P. 1986. The role of Rivulus marmoratus in research on aquatic pollutants. Journal of 

the American Killifish Association, 19(1): 70-80. 
Dreiser, J.E. 1922. Meine Erfahrungen bei der Zucht von Rivulus ocellatus, tenuis, und strigatus. 

Wochenschrift fiir Aquarien- und Terrarienkunde, 19: 222-223. 
Eigenmann, C.H. 1910. Catalogue of the fresh-water fishes of tropical and south temporate 

America. In Scott, W.B. (Ed.), Reports of the Princeton University Expeditions to Patagonia, 

1896-1899, vol. 3 (Zoology), part 4, pp. 375-51 1. Pierpont Morgan PubHcation Fund, 

Princeton. 

Eigenmann, C.H. & Eigenmann, R.S. 1 89 1 . A catalog of the fresh-water fishes of South America. 

Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 14 (842): 1-81 . 
Fowler, H.W. 1954. Os peixes de agua doce do Brasil. Arquivos de Zoologia do Estado de 

Sao Paulo, 9 {4a): 1^00. 
Garmam, S. 1895. The cyprinodonts. Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology of 

Harvard University, 19(1): 1-179. 
Grizzle, J.M. & Thyagarajah, A. 1987. Skin histology of Rivulus ocellatus marmoratus: apparent 

adaptation for aerial respiration. Copeia, 1987(1): 237-240. 
Harrington, R.W., Jr. 1975. Sex determination and differentiation among uniparental homo- 

zygotes of the hermaphroditic fish Rivulus tnarmoratus (Cyprinodontidae: Atheriniformes). 

Pp. 249-262 in Reinboth, R. (Ed.), Intersexuality in the Animal Kingdom, xv, 449 pp. 

Springer- Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York. 
Harrington, R.W., Jr. & Rivas, L.R. 1958. The discovery in Florida of the cyprinodont fish 

Rivulus marmoratus, with a redescription and ecological notes. Copeia, 1958(2): 125-130. 
Hensel, R. 1 868. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Wirbelthiere Siidbrasiliens. Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte 
34(1): 323-375. 

Hoedeman, J.J. 1956. Die bisher beschreibenen Formen und Arten der Gattung Rivulus Poey. 

Aquarien Terrarien,3: 199-202. 
Hoedeman, J.J. 1959. Rivulid fishes of Surinam and other Guyanas, with a preliminary review of 

the genus Rivulus. Studies on the Fauna of Surinam and other Guyanas, 3(7): 44—98. 
Hoedeman, J.J. 1961 . Studies on cyprinodontiform fishes. 8. Preliminary key to the species and 

subspecies of the genus Rivulus. Bulletin of Aquatic Biology, 2(18): 65-74. 
Ihering, R., von. 1931. Cyprindontes brasileiros (Peixes 'Guariis') Systematica e informagoes 

biologicas. Archivos do Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, 4: 243-279. 
Innes, W.T. 1932. Goldfish varieties and tropical aquarium fishes. Ed. 15, 317 pp. Innes & Sons, 

Philadelphia. 

Koenig, C.C, Abel, D.C., Klingensmith, C.W. & Maddock, M.B. 1982. Usefulness of the self- 
fertilizing cyrinodontid fish, Rivulus marmoratus, as an experimental animal in studies 
involving carcinogenesis, teratogenesis, and mutagenesis. 129 pp. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, Florida. 

Kohler, W. 1 906. Neimportierte bezw. erstmalig nachgeziichtete Zahnkarpfen (Poeciliidae), 2. A. 
Eigebarende Zahnkarpfen (Poeciliidae oviparae). 3. Neu importierte Rivulus- Aritn. In 
Wichand, B. & Kohler, W. (Eds.), Diesjahrige Neuheiten in Wort und Bild. Blatter fiir 
Aquarien- und Terrarien-Kunde, 17(41): 404—408. 

Lindsey, C.C. 1988. Factors controlling meristic variation. Pp. 197-274 in Hoar, W.S. & 
Randall, D.J. (Eds.), Fish physiology, vol. 1 1 (The physiology of developing fish), part B 
(Viviparity and posthatching juveniles). 436 pp. Academic Press, San Diego. 



194 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



Massaro, E.J., Massaro, J.C. & Harrington, R.W., Jr. 1975. Biochemical comparison of 
genetically-different homozygous clones (isogenic, uniparental lines) of the self-fertilizing 
fish Rivulus marmoratus. Pp. 439-453 in Markert, C.L. (Ed.), Isozymes 3. xxi, 965 pp. 
Academic Press, New York. 

Mittwoch, U. 1975. Chromosomes and sex differentiation. Pp. 438^446 in Reinboth, R. (Ed.), 
Intersexuality in the Animal Kingdom, xv, 449 pp. Springer- Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 
New York. 

Myers, G.S. 1 927 . An analysis of the genera of neotropical killifishes allied to Rivulus. Annals and 

Magazine of Natural History, (9)19( 1 09): 1 1 5-1 29. 
Parenti, L.R. 1981. A phylogenetic and biogeographic analysis of cyprinodontiform fishes 

(Teleostei, Atherinomorpha). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 168(4): 

335-557. 

Park, E.H. & Kim, D.S. 1984. Hepatocarcinogenicity of diethylnitrosamine to the self-fertilizing 
hermaphroditic fish Rivulus marmoratus (Teleostomi: Cyprinidontidae). Journal of the 
National Cancer Institute, 73(4): 871-876. 

Park, E.H. & Lee, S.H. 1988. Scale growth and squamation chronology for the laboratory- 
reared hermaphroditic fish Rivulus marmoratus (Cyprinodontidae). Japanese Journal of 
Ichthyology, 34(4): 476-482. 

Park, E.H. & Yi, A.K. 1989. Photoreactivation rescue and dark repair demonstrated in 
UV-irradiated embryos of the self-fertilizing fish Rivulus ocellatus marmoratus Teleostei 
Aplocheilidae. Mutation Research, 217(1): 19-24. 

Poey, F. 1880. Revisio piscium cubensium. Anales de la Sociedad Espanola de Historia Natural, 
9(2): 243-261. 

Rachow, A. [undated]. Rivulus ocellatus. No. 641 in Holly, M., Meinken, H. & Rachow, A.C., 
(Eds.), Die Aquarienfische in Wort und Bild. Looseleaf pages, unnumbered. Alfred Kernan 
Verlag, Stuttgart. 

Regan, C.T. 1912. A revision of the poeciliid fishes of the genera Rivulus, Pterolebias, and 

Cynolebias. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (8)10(59): 494—508. 
Rivas, L.R. 1945. The discovery and redescription of the types of Rivulus marmoratus Poey. a 

cyprinodont fish from Cuba. Journal of the Washington Academy of Science, 35(3): 95-91 . 
Robins, C.R., Bailey, R.M., Bond, C.E., Brooker, J.R., Lachner, E.A., Lea, R.N. & Scott, W.B. 

1980. A list of common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. 

Ed. 4. American Fisheries Society Special Publication, No. 12: 1-174. 
Seegers, L. 1980. Killifische, eierlegende Zahnkarpfen im Aquarium. 174 pp. Verlag Eugen Ulmer, 

Stuttgart. 

Seegers, L. 1984. Zur Revision der Rivulus-Avten Siidost-Brasiliens mit einer Neubeschreibung 

von Rivulus luelingi n. sp. und Rivulus caudomarginatus n. sp. (Pisces: Cyprinodontidae: 

Rivulinae). Zoologische Beitrdge N.F., 28(2): 271-320. 
Snelson, F.F., Jr. 1978. Threatened Rivulus. In Pritchard, P.C.H. (series Ed.), Rare and 

Endangered Biota of Florida. Pp. 18-19 in Gilbert, C.R. (Ed.), vol. 4, Fishes, xviii, 58 pp. 

University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 
Sterba, G. 1983. The Aquarium Encyclopedia. 609 pp. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 
Stoye,F.H. 1935. Tropicalfishesfor the home. 2ndEd.,2S4pp., 175 pis. Carl Mertens, New York. 
Terceira, A.C. 1974. Killifish, their care and breeding. 143 pp. Pisces Publishing Corporation, 

Norwalk, Connecticut. 

Thyagarajah, A. & Grizzle, J.M. 1986. Nuclear glycogen and lipid in hepatocytes of a fish, 
Rivulus ocellatus marmoratus. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 64(12): 2868-2870. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47( 3) September 1 990 



195 



Case 2727 .-^ ■ - - ...■'.:-v:V ' -^ 

Coccyzus euleri Cabanis, 1873 (Aves. Cuculiformes): proposed 
conservation of the specific name 

Edwin O. Willis & Y. Oniki 

Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade Estadual Paulista, CP. 178 Rio 
Claro 13500, Sao Paulo, Brazil 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of Coccyzus 
euleri Cabanis, 1873, long established in general use for the South American pearly- 
breasted cuckoo. The name is made invalid by the senior subjective synonym C.julieni 
Lawrence, [1864]. 



1. The name Coccyzus julieni was established by Lawrence, probably in 1864, for a 
single specimen of a cuckoo found on Sombrero Island, in the north Leeward Islands of 
the West Indies. In a full description the bird was characterised by small size, white 
under the wings and absence of rufous colour in the primary wing feathers. The speci- 
men is now in the American Museum of Natural History (cat. no. AMNH 44495); it is a 
young bird of unknown sex and lacks its original label. 

2. The serial volume in which Lawrence's paper (which included the new specific 
name julieni) was published is dated 1867. However, the foot of the first page (p. 42, ref. 
a) of the paper bears the date 1864 in small type and the paper is fisted in The Royal 
Society Catalogue of Scientific Papers (1879, p. 176) with two dates: '[1864]' for the 
paper itself and ' 1 867' when citing the serial volume. Lawrence's paper is listed (p. 56) in 
the first volume (for 1864) of The Record of Zoological Literature, published in 1865. 
Peters ( 1 940, p. 42) adopted the date 1 864, as have other authors. 

3. Coccyzus julieni was considered by Hellmayr (1929, p. 432) as a possible junior 
synonym of C. americanus (Linnaeus, 1758, p. Ill), the yellow-biUed cuckoo, which 
has the type locality of South Carofina, U.S.A. C. julieni v^diS also listed as a synonym of 
americanus by Laubmann (1939, p. 189), Peters (1940, p. 42), Griscom & Greenway 
(1941, p. 150), and Steinbacher (1962, p. 55). It was thought to be a subspecies of 
americanus by Cory (1919, p. 335), Gyldenstolpe (1945, p. 90) and Steullet & Deautier 
(1945, p. 779). 

4. Banks (1988, p. 87), however, thought that the identification of julieni as 
americanus was incorrect and that, following a direct comparison with a series of 
specimens of the North American C. americanus and the South American species 
C. euleri Cabanis, 1873, the single specimen of julieni was unquestionably to be 
identified as the South American species. C. euleri (originally published with the spell- 
ing error Coccygus) is the pearly-breasted, or southern yellow-billed, cuckoo, a bird 
described (p. 72) from Cantagalo, Rio de Janeiro State, southeastern Brazil. Type 
material is in the collections of the zoological museum in Berlin. Ridgway ( 1 9 1 6, p. 20), 
Pinto (1964, p. 169) and Greenway (1978, p. 112) had previously indicated that julieni 
was to be identified with the species euleri. Banks (1988) suggested that the type 



196 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



specimen of julieni was almost certainly a vagrant individual of euleri. This species 
migrates north to Surinam (Haverschmidt, 1968, p. 150), Guyana (Chubb, 1916, p. 
438), Venezuela (Cherrie, 1916, p. 31 1) and Colombia (Hilty & Brown, 1986, p. 217). 
The bird collected was found hiding in a crevice on a rocky islet (Lawrence, p. 98, ref. 
b), an inappropriate situation for a species that normally inhabits forest or scrub 
canopy and edge. 

5. The specific name julieni Lawrence, [1 864] is a senior subjective synonym of euleri 
Cabanis, 1873. Ridgway (1916, p. 20), Pinto (1964, p. 169) and Banks (1988, p. 90) 
adopted julieni on the grounds of priority, although Greenway (1978, p. 112) wrote 
'julieni, now euleri . Pinto later (1978, p. 155) used only the name euleri without 
comment, even though including the type locality of julieni. The name Coccyzus euleri 
Cabanis, 1873 has been used consistently for the South American pearly-breasted 
cuckoo. Authors of major check-lists who have used the name include Peters (1940, 
p. 42), Meyer de Schauensee (1970, p. 112, pi. 24, and the later edition of 1982) and 
Walters (1980, p. 83). A representative list of more than 30 references, principally 
covering the last 50 years, is held by the Commission Secretariat. This includes a 
number of guides and catalogues to the birds of South American countries. Acceptance 
of the name julieni Lawrence, [1864] in place of euleri Cabanis, 1873 would upset 
stability of usage in the extensive Hterature, especially in South America. 

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name julieni Lawrence, [1864], 
as published in the binomen Coccyzus julieni, for the purposes of the Principle of 
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name ew/er/' Cabanis, 
1873, as published in the binomen Coccygus {— Coccyzus) euleri; 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology 
the name julieni Lawrence, [1864], as published in the binomen Coccyzus julieni, 
and as suppressed in (1) above. 

References 

Banks, R.C. 1988. An old record of the pearly-breasted cuckoo in North America and a 
nomenclatural critique. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club, 108(2): 87-91. 

Cabanis, J. 1873. Coccygus euleri n. sp. aus Brasilien. Pp. 72-73 in Protokoll der 48. Monats- 
Sitzung. Verhandelt Berlin, den 4 November 1872. Journal fiir Ornithologie, (4)1(1) (year 
21): 71-73. 

Cherrie, G.K. 1916. A contribution to the ornithology of the Orinoco region. Science Bulletin. 

The Museum of the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences, 2(6): 133a-374. 
Chubb, C. 1916. The Birds of British Guiana, based on a collection of F.V. McConnell, vol. 1. liii, 

528 pp. Quaritch, London. 
Cory, C.B. 1 9 1 9 . Catalogue of birds of the Americas. Field Museum of Natural History, Zoological 

Series, 13 (2, 2): 313-607. (Publication 203). 
Greenway, J.C. 1978. Type specimens of birds in the American Museum of Natural History. 

Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 161(1): 1-305. 
Griscom, L. & Greenway, J.C. 1941. Birds of Lower Amazonia. Bulletin of the Museum of 

Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, 88(3): 81-344. 
Gunther, A.C.L.G. (Ed). 1865. The Record of the Zoological Literature, vol. 1 (for 1864). vii, 634 

pp. Van Voorst, London. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



197 



Gyldenstolpe, N. 1945. A contribution to the ornithology of northern Bolivia. Kungliga Svenska 

Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, (3)23(1): 1-300. 
Haverschmidt, F. 1968. Birds of Surinam, xxx, 445 pp., 40 pis. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh & 

London. 

Hellmayr, C.E. 1929. A contribution to the ornithology of northeastern Brazil. Field Museum of 

Natural History, Zoological Series, 12(18): 233-501. (Publication 255). 
Hilty, S.L. & Brown, W.L. 1986. A Guide to the Birds of Colombia, xii, 836 pp., 69 pis. Princeton 

University Press, Princeton. 
Laubmann, A. 1939. Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Deutschen Gran Chaco-Expedition. Vol. 5, 

Die Vogel von Paraguay. Vol. 1, xv, 246 pp. Strecker & Schroder, Stuttgart. 
Lawrence, G.N. [1864a]. Descriptions of new species of birds of the families Tanagridae, 

Cuculidae, and Trochilidae, with a note on Panterpe insignis. Annals of the Lyceum of 

Natural History of New York, 8: 41^6 (for 1867). 
Lawrence, G.N. [1864b]. Catalogue of birds collected at the Island of Sombrero, W.I., with 

observations by A. A. Julien. Annals of the Lyceum of Natural History of New York, 8: 92-106 

(for 1867). 

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 

Meyer de Schauensee, R. 1970. A Guide to the Birds of South America, xiv, 470 pp., 50 pis. 

Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania. 
Peters, J.L. 1940. Check List of the Birds of the World, vol. 4. xii, 291 pp. Harvard University 

Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 
Pinto, O.M. de O. 1964. Ornitologia Brasiliense, vol. 1, xiv, 182 pp., 25 pis. Departamento de 

Zoologia, Secretaria da Agricultura, Sao Paulo, Brasil. 
Pinto, O.M. de O. 1978. Novo Catdlogo das Aves de Brasil, primeira parte. Empr. Grafica da 

Revista das Tribunals, Sao Paulo. 
Ridgway, R. 1916. The birds of North and Middle America. Part 7. Bulletin of the United States 

National Museum, 50(7): 1-543, pis. 1-24. 
Royal Society of London. 1879. Royal Society Catalogue of Scientific Papers, 1864-1873, vol. 8 

(IBA-ZWl). 1310 pp. Royal Society of London, London. 
Steinbacher, J. 1962. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Vogel von Paraguay. Naturforschenden 

Gesellschaft, 502: \~m. 
Steullet, A.B. & Deautier, E. A. 1 945 . Catalogo sistematico de las Aves de la Republica Argentina. 

Obra del Cincuentenario del Museo de la Plata, 1(4): 733-932. 
Walters, M. 1980. The Complete Birds of the World, xii, 340 pp. David & Charles, London. ' ' 



198 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



Case 2723 

Phororhacos Ameghino, 1889 (Aves, Gruiformes): proposed conservation 

Luis M. Chiappe & Miguel F. Soria 

Museo Argentina de Ciencias Naturales, Av. Angel Gallardo 470, 1405 Buenos 
Aires, Argentina 

Abstract. The purpose of this appHcation is to conserve the name Phororhacos 
Ameghino, 1889, which has been widely used for a genus of fossil giant flightless birds 
from South America. The name was first published as Phorusrhacos Ameghino, 1887, 
based on a single bone then thought to be mammalian, but although this spelling did 
not appear again for 75 years and was rejected in 1968 as a nomen oblitum it has had 
extensive recent usage. 



1. In 1887 Ameghino (p. 24) proposed a new genus and species, Phorusrhacos 
longissimus, based on a fragmentary mandible found in Miocene deposits in southern 
Patagonia, Argentina (although Ameghino interpreted them as Eocene). He assumed 
the bone to be mammahan (Edentata, or anteaters, armadillos and sloths). 

2. In 1889 Ameghino (p. 659) emended the generic name to Phororhacos, and pro- 
posed a family phororhacosidae. The family name was corrected to phororhacidae 
by Lydekker (1893, p. 43) and this spelling was accepted by Ameghino and all 
subsequent workers. 

3. Ameghino (1891a, p. 255) realized that P. longissimus was a giant flightless bird. 
Based on a series of finds he described further species of Phororhacos (1891a, 1891b, 
1895, 1897, 1898, 1900-1903, 1904, 1910). On a single occasion (1898, p. 235) the genus 
appeared as Phororhacus, but elsewhere in that paper it was spelled Phororhacos and we 
assume that Phororhacus was simply a misprint. 

4. Phororhacos has been used as a valid fossil bird genus by numerous workers (e.g. 
Lydekker, 1893; Mercerat, 1897; Andrews, 1896, 1899; Glangeaud, 1898; Rovereto, 
1914; L. Kraglievich, 1920, 1929-32, 1931a, 1931b, 1932, 1940; Saez, 1927a, 1927b, 
1936; Sinclair & Parr, 1932; Cabrera, 1939; Patterson, 1941; J.L. Kraghevich, 1946; 
Piveteau, 1950, 1955; Patterson & J.L. Kraglievich, 1960; Romer, 1966; Rusconi, 1967; 
Cracraft, 1968, 1969; Marshall, 1978). 

5. Sclater (in a footnote (p.41) in Lydekker's 1893 paper), Loomis (1914) and 
Mathew & Granger (1917) used the incorrect spellings Phororhacis, Phororhacus and 
Phororhachos respectively. 

6. Except for Brodkorb (1963, 1967; see para. 7 below) no workers had used the 
name Phorusrhacos since Ameghino's first paper of 1887 when Cracraft (1968, p. 33, 
footnote), citing Article 23b of the Code then in force, formally rejected it as a nomen 
oblitum (i.e. a name not used as valid for more than 50 years and with a junior synonyn 
in general use). That Article said that 'a nomen oblitum is not to be used unless the 
Commission so directs', and added '...a zoologist who discovers such a name is to refer 
it to the Commission...'. Cracraft was correct in his rejection, although he did not refer 



Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 ' 199 

the case to the Commission. Article 79c(iii) of the present Code says 'A name must 
not be used without the approval of the Commission [our italics] if it was rejected... [as a 
nomen oblitum in 1968]. ..To remove uncertainty, the case should be referred to the 
Commission asking for the suppression of the rejected name". This shows that 
Cracraft's omission to refer the case in 1968 did not invalidate his rejection of 
Phorusrhacos Ameghino, 1887, and we are applying for its suppression. 

7. Brodkorb (1963, p. Ill, footnote) considered Phorusrhacos vahd, and he also 
proposed the replacement family name phorusrhacidae. He repeated this point of 
view in his 1967 Catalogue of fossil birds (pp. 157, 162-165). Brodkorb's resurrection 
of a name which had been used only once (75 years earlier and based on a single 
fragmentary bone not then recognized as avian) was completely unjustified. 

8. Despite this, most recent authors have followed Brodkorb and used Phorusrhacos 
(Feduccia, 1980; Tonni, 1980; Mourer-Chauvire, 1981, 1983; Alvarenga, 1982; 
Cracraft, 1982; Olson, 1985a, 1985b; Tonni & Tambussi, 1986, 1988; Vuilleumier, 
1987; Caroll, 1988; Peters, 1989). In total, however, far more workers (see para. 4, and 
also others) have used Phororhacos. 

9. Under Article 40a of the Code the family name phororhacidae Ameghino, 1 889 
(the correct spelling of phororhacosidae: see para. 2) which has been widely used (e.g. 
by authors listed in para. 4), is valid and is not to be replaced by phorusrhacidae 
Brodkorb, 1963. It would be highly confusing to have different valid speUings 
{Phorusrhacos, phororhacidae) for the genus and the family. Since two spellings of 
both names have been used we request a definitive resolution from the Commission. 

1 0. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: 

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Phorusrhacos Ameghino, 
1887 (rejected as a nomen oblitum by Cracraft, 1968) for the purposes of the 
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Phororhacos 
Ameghino, 1889 (gender: masculine), type species by indication under Article 
67h of the Code Phorusrhacos longissimus Ameghino, 1 887; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name longissimus 
Ameghino, 1 887, as published in the binomen Phorusrhacos longissimus (specific 
name of the type species of Phororhacos Ameghino, 1 889); 

(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name 
PHORORHACIDAE Ameghiuo, 1889 (type genus Phororhacos Ameghino, 1889); 

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and InvaHd Generic Names in Zoology 
the name Phorusrhacos Ameghino, 1887, as suppressed in (1) above; 

(6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in 
Zoology the following names; 

(a) PHORORHACOSIDAE Amcghino, 1889 (an incorrect original spelling of 

PHORORHACIDAE); 

(b) PHORUSRHACIDAE Brodkorb, 1963 (name of the type genus suppressed in (1) 
above). 

Acknowledgments 

We want to thank Drs A. Bachman and J.F. Bonaparte {Museo Argentino de Ciencias 
Naturales) and the Commission Secretariat for their useful comments, and also Dr 
A. Walton {Southern Methodist University) who reviewed the English manuscript. ' 



200 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



References 

Alvarenga, H.M.F. 1982. Uma gigantesca ave fosil do Cenozoico Brasileiro: Physornis 

brasiliensis sp. n. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias, 54(4): 697-812. 
Ameghino, F. 1 887. Enumeracion sistematica de las especies de mamiferos fosiles coleccionados 

por Carlos Ameghino en los terrenes Eocenos de la Patagonia austral y depositados en el 

Museo de La Plata. Boletin del Museo de La Plata, 1887: 1-26. 
Ameghino, F. 1889. Contribucion al conocimiento de los mamiferos fosiles de la Republica 

Argentina. Actus de la Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Cordoba, 6: 1-1028. 
Ameghino, F. 1891a. Mamiferos y aves fosiles argentinos: especies nuevas: adiciones y 

correcciones. Revista Argentina de Historia Natural, 1: 240-259. 
Ameghino, F. 1891b. Enumeracion de las aves fosiles de la Republica Argentina. Revista 

Argentina de Historia Natural, 1: 441-453. 
Ameghino, F. 1895. Sur les oiseaux fossiles de la Patagonie. Boletin del Instituto Geogrdfico 

Argentino, 15: 501-602. 

Ameghino, F. 1897. South America as the source of the Tertiary Mammalia. Natural Science, 
11(68): 256-264. 

Ameghino, F. 1898. Sinopsis geologica-paleontologica de la Argentina. Segundo Censo de la 

Republica Argentina, vq\. l,pp. 112-255. 
Ameghino, F. 1900-03. L'age des formations sedimentaires de Patagonie. Anales de la Sociedad 

Cientifica Argentina, 50: 109-130, 145-165, 209-229; 51: 20-39, 65-91; 52: 189-197, 

244-250; 54: 161-180, 220-249, 283-342. 
Ameghino, F. 1904. Paleontologia Argentina: relaciones filogeneticas y geograficas. Anales del 

Instituto de Ensenanza General, 1: 1 1-84. 
Ameghino, F. 1910. Geologia, Paleontologia y Antropologia de la Republica Argentina. La 

Nacion, numero extraordinario del 25 de Mayo de 1910. 
Andrews, C.W. 1896. Remarks on the Stereornithes, a group of extinct birds of Patagonia. The 

Ibis, (7)2: 1-12. 

Andrews, C.W. 1899. On the extinct birds of Patagonia. 1. The skull and skeleton o[ Phororhacos 

inflatus Ameghino. Transactions of the Zoological Society of London, 15(3)1 : 55-85. 
Brodkorb,P. 1963. A giant flightless bird from the Pleistocene of Florida. The Auk, 80: 111-115. 
Brodkorb, P. 1967. Catalogue of fossil birds, part 3 (Ralliformes, Ichthyornithiformes, 

Charadriiformes). Bulletin of the Florida State Museum, Biological Series, 2(3): 106-218. 
Cabrera, A. 1939. Sobre vertebrados fosiles del Plioceno de Adolfo Alsina. Revista del Museo de 

La Plata, Paleontologia, 2: 3-35. 
Carroll, R. 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. 698 pp. Freeman, New York. 
Cracraft, J. 1968. A review of the Bathornithidae (Aves, Gruiformes), with remarks on the 

relationships of the Suborder Cariamae. American Museum Novitates, 2326: 1-46. 
Cracraft, J. 1969. Systematics and evolution of the Gruiformes (Class, Aves). 1. The Eocene 

family Geranoididae and the early history of the Gruiformes. American Museum Novitates, 

2388:1^1. 

Cracraft, J. 1982. Phylogenetic relationships and transantarctic biogeography of some gruiform 

birds. Geobios, Memoire Special 6: 393^02. 
Feduccia, A.J. 1980. The age of birds. 196 pp. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 

Massachusetts. 

Glangeaud, Ph. 1898. Les oiseaux geants de la Patagonie. Le Naturaliste, (2)260: 53-56. 
Kraglievich, J.L. 1946. Noticia preliminar acerca de un nuevo y gigantesco Estereornito de la 

fauna Chapadmalense. Anales de la Sociedad Cientifica Argentina, 142: 104-121. 
Kraglievich, L. 1920. Sobre aves fosiles de la Repiibhca Argentina. El Hornero, 2(1): 1-8. 
Kraglievich, L. 1929-32. Una gigantesca ave fosil del Uruguay, Devicenzia gallinali n. gen. et sp. 

tipo de una nueva familia Devicenziidae del orden Stereornithes. Anales del Museo de 

Historia Natural de Montevideo, (2)3: 323-353. 
Kraglievich, L. 1 93 1 a. El despertar de los estudios paleontologicos en la Republica del Uruguay. 

Archivos de la Sociedad de Biologia de Montevideo, 2(1): 32-39. 
Kraglievich, L. 1931b. Contribucion al conocimiento de las aves fosiles de la epoca arauco- 

entrerriana. P/zjjw, 10: 304-315. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



201 



Kraglievich, L. 1932. La antiguedad pUocena de las faunas de Monte Hermoso y Chapadmalal 
deducidas de su comparacion con las que le precedieron y sucedieron, pp. 19-136. El Siglo 
Ilustrado, Montevideo. 

Kraglievich, L. 1940. Descripcion de la gran ave pliocena Mesembriomis milnedwardsi. Obras de 
Geologiay Paleontologia, vol. 3, pp. 639-666. Taller de impresiones Oficiales, La Plata. 

Loomis, F.B. 1914. The Deseado Formation of Patagonia. 232 pp. Rumford Press, Amherst, 
Massachusetts. 

Lydekker, R. 1893. On the extinct giant birds of Argentina. The Ibis, 5: 40-47. 

Marshall, L.G. 1978. The terror bird. Bulletin of Field Museum of Natural History, 49(9): 6-15. 

Mathew, W.D. & Granger, W. 1917. The skeleton of Diatryma, a gigantic bird from the Lower 

Eocene of Wyoming. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 37: 307-326. 
Mercerat, A. 1897. Note sur les oiseaux fossiles de la Republique Argentine. Anales de la 

Sociedad Cientifica Argentina, 43: 222-258. 
Mourer-Chauvire, C. 1981. Premiere indication de la presence de Phorusrhacides, famille 

d'oiseaux geants d'Amerique du Sud, dans le Tertiaire europeen: Ameghinornis nov. gen. 

(Aves, Ralliformes) des Phosphorites du Quercy, France. Geobios, 14(5): 637-647. 
Mourer-Chauvire, C. 1983: Les Gruiformes (Aves) des Phosphorites du Quercy (France). 1. 

Sous-ordre Cariamae (Cariamidae et Phorusrhacidae), systematique et biostratigraphie. 

Palaeovertebrata, 13(4): 83-143. 
Olson, S.L. 1985a. Faunal turnover in South American fossil avifaunas: the insufficiencies of the 

fossil record. Evolution, 39(5): 11 74^1 177. 
Olson, S.L. 1985b. The fossil record of birds. Pp. 79-252 in Earner, D., King, J. & Parkes, 

K. (Eds.), Avicm Biology, vol. 8. Academic Press, New York. 
Patterson, B. 1941. A new phororhacoid bird from the Deseado Eormation of Patagonia. Field 

Museum of Natural History, Geological Series, 8(8): 49-54. 
Patterson, B. & Kraglievich, J.L. 1960. Sistematica y nomenclatura de las Aves fororracoideas 

del Plioceno Argentino. Publicaciones del Museo Municipal de Ciencias Naturales y 

Tradicionales de Mar del Plata, 1(1): 3-51. 
Peters, D.S. 1987. Ein 'Phorusrhacide' aus dem Mittel-Eozan von Messel (Aves: Gruiformes: 

Cariamae). Pp. 71-87 in Mourer-Chauvire, C. (Ed.), L'evolution des oiseaux d'apres le 

temoignage des fossiles. Documentes des Laboratoires de Geologic, Lyon (no. 99). 
Piveteau, J. 1950. Origine et evolution des oiseaux. Pp. 792-835 in Grasse, P. -P. (Ed.), Traite de 

Zoologie, vol. 15. 1 164 pp. Masson et Cie, Paris. 
Piveteau, J. 1955. Oiseaux. Aves Linne. Pp. 994—1091 in Piveteau, J. (Ed.), Traite de 

Paleontologie, vol. 5. 1113 pp. Masson et Cie, Paris. 
Romer, A.S. 1966. Vertebrate Paleontology, Ed. 3. 468pp. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 
Rovereto, C. 1914. Los estratos araucanos y sus fosiles. Anales del Museo Nacional de Historia 

Natural de Buenos Aires, 25: 1-250. 
Rusconi, C. 1 967. Animales extinguidos de Mendoza y de la Argentina, pp. 5^89. Edicion Oficial, 

Mendoza, Argentina. 

Saez, M.D. de. 1927a. Las aves corredoras fosiles del Santacrucense. Anales de la Sociedad 

Cientifica Argentina, 103: 304-315. < 
Saez, M.D. de. 1 927b. Liornis minor, una especie nueva de ave fosil. Physis, 8: 584. 
Saez, M.D. de. 1936. Estado actual y problemas de la Paleornitologia Argentina. Obras del 

Cincuentenario del Museo de La Plata, 2: 23-32. 
Sinclair, W.J. & Farr, M.S. 1932. Aves of the Santa Cruz Beds. Pp. 157-191 w Scott, W.B. (Ed.), 

Reports of The Princeton University Expeditions to Patagonia (1896-1899), vol. 7, part 2. 

Princeton, New Jersey. 

Tonni, E. 1980. The present state of knowledge of the Cenozoic birds of Argentina. Contributions 
in Science, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 330: 105-1 14. 

Tonni, E. & Tambussi, C. 1986. Las Aves del Cenozoico de la Repiiblica Argentina. 4 Congreso 
Argentino de Paleontologia y Bioestratigrafia, 2: 131-142. 

Tonni, E. & Tambussi, C. 1988. Un nuevo Psilopterinae (Aves: Ralliformes) del mioceno tardio 
de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, Repiiblica Argentina. Ameghiniana, 25(2): 155-160. 

Vuilleumier, F. 1987. Suggestions pour des Recherches sur les avifaunes cenozoiques d'Amerique 
du Sud. Pp. 239-248 in Mourer-Chauvire, C. (Ed.), L'evolution des oiseaux d'apres le 
temoignage des fossiles. Documentes des Laboratoires de Geologie, Lyon (no. 99). 



202 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



Comments on the proposed conservation of Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784 and 
Nerita hebraea Martyn, 1786 (currently Placostylus fibratus and Natica hebraea; 
Mollusca, Gastropoda) 

(Case 2641; see BZN47: 12-18) 

(1) R. Tucker Abbott 

American Malacologists Inc., P.O. Box 2255, Melbourne, Florida 32902-2255, U.S.A. 

I object to the conservation of Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784. Martyn's names were 
ruled to be unavailable in Opinion 456 (March 1957), and the next available name is 
Bulimus bovinus Bruguiere, 1792. This has been used as B. bovinus by Bosc (1802, 
p. Ill), as Auricula bovina by Lamarck (1822, p. 134) and Deshayes (1838, p. 328), as 
Placostylus fibratus var. bovinus by Pilsbry (1904), and as P. bovinus by Zilch (1960, 
p. 497, where it is cited as the type species of the genus Placostylus Beck, 1837) and 
Abbott (1989, p. 102). 

I object to the Commission gradually chiseling away at valid names by the piecemeal 
conservation of unavailable Martyn and Chemnitz names. Martyn's work was entirely 
hand-painted and was not published until Chenu's 1845 reprint. 

Additional references 

Abbott, R.T. 1989. Compendium of landshells. A color guide to more than 2,000 of the world's 

terrestrial shells. 240 pp. American Malacologists Inc., Melbourne, Florida. 
Bosc, L.A.G. 1802. Histoire naturelle des coquilles, vol. 4, 280 pp., 36 pis. Crapelet, Paris. In 

Buffon, G.L.L. de, Histoire naturelle de Bujfon, classee... d'apres le systeme de Linne... par 

R.R. Castel... nouvelle edition. 
Chenu, J.C. 1 845. Le Conchyliologiste Universel ou figures des coquilles... par T. Martyn. Ouvrage 

revue. In Chenu, J.C, Bibliotheque Conchyliologique, ser. 1, vol. 2. vi, 32 pp., 56 pis. Franck, 

Paris. 

(2) Philippe Bouchet 

Museum National d' Histoire Naturelle, 55 rue de Buffon, Paris, France 

Dr Abbott's objection (above) to the use of the name Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784 
does not introduce facts that I have not already stated in my apphcation. 

I have given the reasons why I do not consider the name Bulimus bovinus Bruguiere, 
1792 to be applicable to a New Caledonian species of Placostylus Beck, 1837 (see 
BZN 47: 13, paras. 5, 6). These are that Bruguiere gives New Holland (= Australia) 
for the origin of his species, and that he refers to a figure published by Lister in 1770 
(and copied by Favanne in 1780), which was four years before the discovery of New 
Caledonia by Cook. 

Dr Abbott states that the name bovinus has been used and lists six references. I did 
not say that the name had not been used and my application refers to 1 3 uses of bovinus. 
I did not cite Abbott (1989) simply because Dr Abbott's book was still in press when I 
submitted my apphcation. Dr Abbott's hst does not add anything to the facts as I have 
already explained them (para. 5 of my application). 

Dr Abbott does not address the continuous confusion that has surrounded the name 
bovinus, used at times during the 19th century for a New Zealand species of Placostylus 
but never, except once by Abbott himself, as the name for a New Caledonian species. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



203 



If Limaxfibratus Martyn, 1 784 is rejected the next available name is Valuta elongata 
Lightfoot, 1786 (an objective synonym; see para. 4 of my application) and not Bulimus 
bovinus Bruguiere, 1792 (a questionable subjective synonym; see para. 6). 

I have carefully given evidence of the continuous usage, in the older and more 
recent hterature, of the name fibratus Martyn, 1784 for a New Caledonian species of 
Placostylus (para. 9). My application remains unaffected by Dr Abbott's superficial 
comments. 

(3) Anthea Gentry 

Secretariat , International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ' 

Dall ( 1 907, p. 191) and Iredale ( 1 92 1 , p. 1 3 1 ) noted that copies of Martyn's Universal 
Conchologist show variations in both the text and plates. For example, the name Nerita 
hebraea, which is also involved in Dr Bouchet's application, appears as Nerita litteris 
Hebraicis notatus in the table (vol. 3, pi. 109) in some copies of the work, including that 
in the Natural History Museum, London. This is due to the specific name and descrip- 
tive phrase having been exchanged in two columns of text. The plates were engraved 
and then hand coloured; in his introduction to the work, Martyn (1784, vol. 1, p. 8) 
wrote 'The engraving will consist merely of a delicate outline, as a certain guide for the 
relative proportions of the parts: to this the utmost skill and labour of the painter will be 
added...'. The variabihty between copies of the work was noted in Opinion 456 (March 
1957) but the work was taken as pubhshed according to the then existing Rules of 
Nomenclature. In the background material to the Opinion it was noted that There is 
nothing in any one copy... that contradicts or is inconsistent with anything in any other 
copy'. The work was rejected by the Commission for nomenclatural purposes because 
the author did not apply the 'principles of binominal nomenclature'. As mentioned in 
Dr Bouchet's apphcation, nine names for New Zealand mollusc species have pre- 
viously been made available from Martyn's work and Opinion 456 invited specialists to 
apply for the 'validation' of further names. The present application seeks to make two 
additional names available by use of the Commission's plenary powers. 

The engravings in Chenu's 1 845 work, referred to in Dr Abbott's comment, are black 
and white. Dall (1907, p. 185) referred to the work as a 'so-called reprint... which turns 
out to.be entirely unreliable', and (p. 191) 'the discrepancies between the tables [in 
Martyn] and Chenu's hst are so great that it does not seem reasonable to refer them 
merely to carelessness'. Dall concluded that 'it was from one of the altered copies [of 
Martyn] that Chenu's badly printed list was taken, adding a number of errors of his 
own'. Iredale (1921, p. 131) also noted that there were discrepancies between the two 
works. , , 

Additional reference 

Iredale, T. 1921. Unpublished plates of T. Martyn, conchologist. Proceedings of the 
Malacological Society of London, 14(4): 131-134. 

(4) Riccardo Giannuzzi-Savelli 

Societa Italiana di Malacologia, c/o Acquario Civico, Viale Gadio 2, 20121 Milan, 
Italy 



204 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



I Strongly support Dr Bouchet's application for the conservation of Natica hebraea 
Martyn, 1786. This is a clear-cut case where a familiar well-known name of a species of 
wide economic importance should be stabilised and preserved. 

Comment on the proposed precedence of polygyridae Pilsbry, 1894 over mesodontidae 
Tryon, 1866 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) 

(Case 2642; see BZN 46: 94^96) 

G. Rosenberg & K.C. Emberton 

Academy of Natural Sciences, 19th and the Parkway, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, 
U.S.A. 

The application did not mention that both the generic name Mesodon and the 
specific name leucodon were first published by Ferussac ( 1 82 1 , p. 37 folio, p. 33 quarto) 
in the synonymy of Helix thyroidus (Say, 1817). This had been noted by Kennard 
(1942, p. 117). Ferussac attributed Mesodon leucodon to Rafinesque. The generic 
name Mesodon is available under Article 1 le of the Code, with authorship ascribed to 
Ferussac (1821) (Article 50g). Under Article 671 its type species is 'that nominal species 
first directly associated with it under an available species-group name' (i.e. Helix 
thyroidus). The specific name leucodon seems not to have been used as valid since its 
original (1821) publication and was not mentioned by Rafinesque himself in 1831. It 
was not listed by Sherborn (1927). Therefore, it would not be available through usage 
as the type species of Mesodon. Herrmannsen (1847, p. 40) designated Helix thyroidus 
Say, 1817 as the type species, which was reported by Kennard (1942, p. 117). 

The genus Mesodon was described by Rafinesque in 1831 (p. 3), with the single 
included species maculatum (a nomen dubium), thereby making the name available 
from the time of its first appearance in synonymy (Ferussac, 1821). 

Rafinesque (1831) and subsequent authors (Scudder, 1882, p. 208; Tryon, 1887, pp. 
113, 150) cited the name Mesodon from 'Rafinesque, 1819'. The name appears as 
Mesodon leucodon (Rafinesque in McMurtrie, 1819, p. 66) but both the generic and 
specific names are nomina nuda. 

The family-group name mesodontinae was introduced by Tryon in the American 
Journal of Conchology (1866, p. 306), as stated in the apphcation, and was discussed by 
him (1867, pp. 4, 38) in the continuation of his work. Tryon reprinted this work as a 
book, in which mesodontinae appeared or was discussed on pp. 55, 71 and 75. The 
book was pubhshed in parts which were available by subscription. We have not found 
any evidence to indicate that publication of parts of the book preceded pubhcation of 
the corresponding parts of the journal. 

The application requested that the family name polygyridae Pilsbry, 1894 be given 
precedence over mesodontidae Tryon, 1866. It would have been better to ask for 
'family-group names based on Polygyra Say, 1 8 1 8' to be given precedence as there is the 
same problem at subfamily and superfamily levels. 

Additional references 

Ferussac, J.B.L. de'A. de. 1821. Tableau systematique des animaux mollusques... suivis d'un 
prodrome general pour tous les mollusques terrestres on fluviatiles vivants ou fossiles, part 2 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1 990 



205 



(Tableaux particuliers des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles, classe des gasteropodes: 
Tableau de la famille des Lima?ons), pp. 1-94 folio, pp. 1-90 quarto. 
Herrmannseii, A.N. 1847-1849. Indiciis generum Malacozoorum primordia, vol. 2. xlii, 717 pp. 
Fischer, Cassellis. 

Kennard, A.S. 1942. The Histoire and Prodrome of Ferussac. Proceedings of the Malacological 

Society of London, 25: 105-118. 
Rafinesque, C.S. 1819. Conchology. Pp. 65-66 in McMurtrie, H., Sketches of Louisville and its 

environs, viii, 255 pp. Louisville, Kentucky. 
Rafinesque, C.S. 1831. Enumeration and account of some remarkable natural objects in the cabinet 

of Prof. Rafinesque, in Philadelphia; being animals, shells, plants, and fossils, collected by him 

in North America, between 1816 and 1831. 8 pp. Philadelphia. 
Scudder, M. 1882. Nomenclator Zoologicus. xix, 340 pp. Government Printing Office, 

Washington. 

Sherborn, CD. 1927. Index Animalium. 1801-1850, section 2. Part 14, pp. 3393-3746 
Tryon, G.W. 1866-1868. A monograph of the terrestrial Mollusca inhabiting the United States. 
159, xliv pp., 18 pis. Published by the author, Philadelphia. 



Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Texigryphaea pitched 
(Morton, 1834) (Mollusca, Bivalvia) ' 

(Case 2683; see BZN 46: 226-228) ., - •, ' 

R.W.Scott : ; 

Amoco Production Company, 4502 East 41st Street, Post Office Box 3385, Tulsa, 
Oklahoma 74102, U.S.A. 

I would like to support the proposed conservation of the name Gryphaea pitcheri 
Morton, 1834. Although in 1970 I used the name corrugata for specimens that now 
would be called pitcheri, I agree that corrugata was inadequately described and its type 
locality cannot be determined so that topotypes cannot be collected. Fay also made 
this case in 1975. I believe that modern standards are more rigorous and that future 
taxonomic studies will be served better by ruling in favor of this case. This species is one 
of the most abundant and age-diagnostic species in this part of the Cretaceous section. 
It also has paleoecological significance. Stabilization of this name will permit future 
studies of phylogeny and paleobiogeography of this group of oysters to proceed 
without being sidetracked. 

Comments on the proposed conservation of Proptera Rafinesque, 1819 (Mollusca, 
Bivalvia) 

(Case 2558; see BZN 47: 19-21) 

(1) Arthur H. Clarke - v - 

Ecosearch Inc., 325 East Bayview, Portland, Texas 78374, U.S.A. : ! , , . 

I wish to express my wholehearted support for the conservation of Proptera 
Rafinesque, 1819. Although the recently exhumed senior objective synonym Potamilus 
Rafinesque, 1818 has been used by some recent authors in faunal lists and other local 
studies, Proptera has been the overwhelming choice of authors of monographs and 
other taxonomically critical works. : v' 



206 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



The use of both Proptera and Potamilus for the same genus has led to confusion 
among non-speciahsts and will continue to do so. For example, one species of Proptera 
{capax Green, 1833) is included on our federal List of Endangered and Threatened 
Species, and disagreements among specialists about its correct name have weakened 
the perceived credibility of malacologists in contested cases involving the conservation 
of that species. Other examples could also have been cited but the point is that stable 
nomenclature is more than an academic convenience. The lack of stabihty hinders our 
ability to get on with much more serious biological issues, issues such as ensuring the 
very survival of species. 

(2) Arthur E. Bogan 

Academy of Natural Sciences, 19th and the Parkway, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, 
U.S.A. 

James D. Williams 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Fishery Research Laboratory, 7920 NW 71st 
Street, Gainesville, Florida 32606 , U.S.A. 

Samuel L.H. Fuller 

Florida State Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 
32611, U.S.A. 

We consider that simple priority should govern the choice of generic names in this 
case, and recommend against the proposed conservation of Proptera Rafinesque, 1819 
by the suppression of Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818. 

The generic concept for the species variously grouped with Unio alatus Say, 1817 has 
changed continuously over the last 170 years. This is a problem in unionid systematics. 
It is only in the past 20 years that some sort of stabihty in North American unionid 
nomenclature has arisen. This stability is based on re-examination of the types and 
taking the earliest available name regardless of what names may have been used for the 
last 30 years. Gordon (BZN 47: 20, para. 6) remarked that Morrison's 1969 action 
was 'solely to reintroduce an unused Rafinesque name'. What would replacing one 
Rafinesque name with another accompUsh? Morrison was working to bring about 
stabihty in the nomenclature by trying to recognize the earliest available names, 
especially those overlooked or ignored but validly proposed and with priority. 

A survey of the use of Potamilus in the recent unionid hterature was made. The 
molluscan section of the Zoological Record from 1 969 to 1 989 was examined for articles 
using Potamilus. Only one citation was found. This paucity of citations is not truly 
indicative of the use of Potamilus in the pubUshed hterature. A sample of the extensive 
use of Potamilus in this period has been given to the Commission Secretariat, consisting 
of 104 citations by 84 authors from the United States, Canada and Great Britain. These 
consist of (i) state and federal agency surveys and reports (23 references); (ii) workshops 
and published symposia (6 papers); (iii) reports hsting state or federal endangered or 
threatened species in Potamilus (22 references); (iv) reports of unionids in archaeologi- 
cal contexts (11 references); (v) journal papers using Potamilus (31 references); (vi) 
unionid surveys of river basins or states (4 books); (vii) checkUsts, dissertations, etc. 
(7 references). 



Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 207 

Potamilus has been used in the United States Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species 
Program since 1974. Not only is it used for two species of Potamilus on the federal 
endangered species list but is used in a number of state endangered species lists as well. 
Since Potamilus is listed on the United States federal list of endangered species it has 
been picked up by the lUCN Red Data Book on endangered invertebrate species 
(lUCN, 1986). 

The American Malacological Union and the Council of Systematic Malacologists 
working with the American Fisheries Society produced a checklist of the molluscan 
fauna of North America north of Mexico based on all available published literature. 
Several preliminary lists were widely circulated and a draft version published 
(American Malacological Union, 1985). All submitted comments were carefully con- 
sidered. The first edition of this checklist was pubhshed as a special publication of the 
American Fisheries Society (Turgeon et al., 1988). This checkUst uses Potamilus. 

This survey illustrates that the use of Potamilus in the published literature is in fact 
widespread. This is in direct contrast to the impression given by Gordon (BZN 47: 20, 
para. 8). 

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: 

(1) not to use its plenary powers to suppress the name Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Potamilus 
Rafinesque, 1818 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by 
Morrison (1969) Unio alatus Say, 1817; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name alatus Say, 
1 8 1 7, as published in the binomen Unio alatus (specific name of the type species 
of Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818). 

Additional References . 

American Malacological Union. 1985. Suggested draft list of common names for mollusks 
occurring from America north of Mexico. Shells and Sealife, 17(2): 45-85. 

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. 1986. 1986 lUCN Red 
List of Threatened Animals. 105 pp. International Union for Conservation of Nature and 
Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K. 

Turgeon, D.D., Bogan, A.E., Coan, E.V., Emerson, W.K., Lyons, W.G., Pratt, W.L., Roper, 
C.F.E., Scheltema, A., Thompson, F.G. & Williams, J.D. 1988. Common and scientific names 
of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Molluslcs. American Fisheries 
Society Special Publication no. 16. vii, 277 pp., 12 pis. Bethesda. 

Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific names of Aphrodita imbrkata 
Linnaeus, 1767 (currently Harmothoe imbrkata) and Aphrodita minuta Fabricius, 1780 
(currently Pholoe minuta) (Annelida, Polychaeta) 

(Case 2452; see BZN 46: 22-24) 

(1) Mary E. Petersen 

Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 
Copenhagen 0, Denmark 

Chambers & Heppell have pointed out that the specific name imbricata is threatened 
by the senior subjective synonym Aphrodita lepidota Pallas, 1766, and that A. minuta 



208 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



Fabricius, 1780 is preoccupied by the senior primary homonym Aphrodita minuta 
Pennant, 1777. 

I see no reason not to support conservation of the specific name imbricata as long as 
lepidota is believed to represent the same taxon. However, I suggest that a conditional 
suppression of lepidota would be preferable as this would leave the name lepidota 
available should it become desirable to recognize specific differences between some of 
the forms currently being referred to imbricata. As indicated below, this is not unlikely. 

Harmothoe imbricata is generally considered to be well known and widely distributed. 
Critical examination of other such species (e.g. Capitella capitata by Grassle & Grassle, 
1976; Terebellides stroemii by Williams, 1984; Chaetopterus variopedatus by Petersen, 
1984 and in preparation) has revealed the 'well known' name in each case to be used for 
several species and has resulted in recognition of additional taxa, often those previously 
considered junior synonyms. That characters may be found at all levels, from behavioral 
to ultrastructural, has been elegantly shown by Westheide & Rieger (1987) for three 
very similar species of the Microphthalmus listensis complex, previously believed to be a 
single species. 

Most authors have remarked on the great biological and morphological variation 
shown by specimens identified as H. imbricata, which is claimed to be cosmopolitan, 
but no one has yet undertaken a critical revision of the species on a worldwide or even 
northern European basis. We therefore still do not know how many distinct taxa are 
being referred to this name. The species undoubtedly varies greatly in color pattern 
and ornamentation of the scales, but it has also been reported to show variation in 
spawning season and reproductive biology. 

In European waters, Rasmussen (1956; the Isefjord, Denmark) and Daly (1972; 
CuUercoats, England) found H. imbricata to have large eggs brooded under the elytra, 
whereas Cazaux (1968; Arcachon, France) found small eggs freely spawned. This 
suggests that two or more taxa are present here; reports of the taxon from other areas 
(e.g. Izuka, 1912, Japan; Blake, 1975, northern CaUfornia) may represent something 
else again. 

Linnaeus' original description of imbricata (type locaUty Iceland) does not mention 
any specific color pattern, only that the color pattern is variable. Variations similar to 
those described for H. imbricata as presently defined also occur in other scaleworms, 
e.g. H. elisabethae (Mcintosh, 1900) (M.E. Petersen, unpublished observations). 

The type locality of lepidota is between England and Belgium, in the southern 
North Sea, and Arcachon is on the Bay of Biscay (coast of France). If some of the 
free-spawning 'imbricata' from Arcachon fit the description of lepidota and can be 
distinguished from Icelandic imbricata that brood their eggs, imbricata could be 
restricted to a brooding form (which seems to be the type of breeding biology most 
often reported for this species) and lepidota to a free-spawning form. Any redescription 
of lepidota should, of course, be based on material from as close to the type locality as 
possible, and not from Arcachon. Until a critical comparison of these forms has been 
made, I do not feel it is desirable to suppress lepidota unconditionally. It is possible 
that more than one taxon will be distinguished and I cannot see how conditional 
suppression could endanger nomenclatural stabiUty. 

Chambers & Heppell point out that the name Pholoe minuta (Fabricius, 1780) is 
threatened by the senior homonym Aphrodita minuta Pennant, 1777, erected for a 
species from off" Anglesey, Wales (the Irish Sea). Revisions in progress (Chambers, 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



269 



see BZN 46: 23; M.E. Petersen, in preparation) have shown that P. minuta has 
been misinterpreted by most later workers and thus is not as widespread as believed 
(Petersen, 1983, pp. 64-65). Although there are still some points that need clarification 
and require examination of newly collected material from the type locality (an attempt 
to obtain such is currently being made), the species is described in some detail, and it 
is desirable that the name minuta be retained for Fabricius' species. 

It is really not clear whether Pennant merely created what he considered a more 
appropriate name for lepidota or whether he thought he had a new species. His descrip- 
tion of minuta states only that the species is an 'APH. with small scales; slender; not an 
inch long.' (Pennant, 1777, p. 45, pi. 24, fig. 29; 1812, p. 87, pi. 26, fig. 4) and, together 
with the figure, could either be interpreted as a Pholoe or a polynoid, although the latter 
is the more likely. If a polynoid, the species could belong to any of a number of genera, 
and is either indeterminable or at best a junior synonym of lepidota. I fully agree with 
Chambers and Heppell that recognition of minuta Pennant serves no useful purpose, 
and I support their request for its suppression. 

Acknowledgements ■ ■ > / 

Susan Chambers (Edinburgh), Anthea Gentry (ICZN Secretariat), and the Department 
of MoUusks, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., provided help with the early 
literature. The manuscript was read by Dr Claus Nielsen and Danny Eibye-Jacobsen, 
Copenhagen, whose comments and suggestions are gratefully acknowledged. 

Additional references 

Blake, J. A. 1975. The larval development of Polychaeta from the northern California Coast. III. 
Eighteen species of Errantia. Ophelia, 14: 23-84. 

Cazaux, C. 1968. Etude morphologique de developpement larvaire d'annelides Polychetes. 
(Bassin d'Arcachon). I. Aphroditidae, Chrysopetalidae. Archives de Zoologie Experimentale 
et Generate, 109: 477-543. 

Daly, J.M. 1972. The maturation and breeding biology of Harmothoe imbricata (Polychaeta: 
Polynoidae). Marine Biology, 12(1): 53-66. 

Grassle, J.P. & Grassle, J.F. 1976. Sibling species in the marine pollution indicator Capitella 
(Polychaeta). Science, 192: 567-569. 

Izuka, A. 1912. The errantiate Polychaeta of Japan. Journal of the College of Science, Imperial 
University of Tokyo, 30(2): 1-262. 

Pennant, T. 1812. British Zoology. A new (fifth) edition, vol. 4, 380 pp., 95 pis. London. 

Petersen, M.E. 1983. Pholoe minuta: a cosmopolitan species or a victim of the 'Characteristic 
Species Disease'? Pp. 64-65 in: Programme of Polychaete Conference, Australicm Museum, 
July 1983. (Unpublished programme abstract.) 

Petersen, M.E. 1984. Cliaetopterus variopedatus (Annelida: Polychaeta): Another victim of the 
'characteristic species' disease. American Zoologist, 24(3): 62A. 

Rasmussen, E. 1956. Faunistic and biological notes on marine invertebrates III. The repro- 
duction and larval development of some polychaetes from the Isefjord, with some faunistic 
notes. Biologiske Meddelelser cifDet Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, 23(1): 1-84. 

Westheide, W. & Rieger, R.M. 1987. Systematics of the amphiatlantic Microphthalmus-listensis- 
species-group (Polychaeta: Hesionidae): Facts and concepts for reconstruction of phylogeny 
and speciation. Zeitschrift fur Zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung, 25( 1 ): 1 2-39. 

Williams, S.J. 1984. The status of Terebellides stroemi (Polychaeta; Trichobranchidae) as a 
cosmopolitan species, based on a worldwide morphological survey, including description of 
new species. Pp. 118-142 in P. A. Hutchings (Ed.), Proceedings of the First International 
Polychaete Conference, Sydney. The Linnean Society of New South Wales. 



210 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



(2) Susan Chambers & David Heppell 

Department of Natural History, National Museums of Scotland, Chambers Street, 
Edinburgh EHl IJF, U.K. 

We were interested to see Dr Petersen's comments (above) on the proposed conser- 
vation of the specific names of Aphrodita imbricata Linnaeus, 1767 and A. minuta 
Fabricius, 1780, and were pleased to have her support and additional information 
regarding A. minuta. We also carefully considered her alternative proposals for 
conditional suppression of the specific name lepidota, but are unable to agree with that 
for the reasons given below. 

We agree that there are probably several taxa included under H. imbricata, and that 
H. lepidota is probably a colour form of the same taxon, given our current knowledge of 
the species. If the name lepidota were to be suppressed only conditionally, however, it 
would not be available for use for a segregate species unless it could be shown that the 
morphological, developmental or behavioural differences which characterized the new 
species were present in individuals of the 'lepidota'' colour form, but not in those of 
typical 'imbricata'. As the 'lepidota' form is well known from populations studied 
throughout the distribution range of imbricata, we doubt that any such correlation 
between the distinctive colour pattern and other observable differences would have 
been overlooked by all previous workers. 

There seem, therefore, to be only two alternative actions: to acknowledge the priority 
of lepidota and use the name in place of imbricata; or to suppress lepidota and accept 
imbricata as the valid name. Perhaps it would have been better if Malgren, or some 
other worker last century, had accepted lepidota as the name to use, but they were 
working before an agreed code of nomenclature had been accepted. They regarded the 
name imbricata as representing the typical form of the species, and lepidota as the name 
of the variety of it. The relative priority of the names was subordinate to their interpret- 
ation. We believe sufficient usage of the names in that sense warrants conservation of 
the name of the typical form as the name of the species, and this can only effectively be 
done by total suppression of the name of the variety. 

Even if some of the 'free-spawning' individuals of 'imbricata'' were of the 'lepidota'' 
form, we do not think that would justify retention of the name. For such individuals to 
be recognized as a distinct species other, primarily morphological, characters would 
need to be associated, and we believe it would be impossible, in the absence of original 
type material, to show that these were found in the specimens described by Pallas. It 
would be preferable to introduce a new name, with a full new description. As Cazaux's 
observations have not been repeated elsewhere the possibility remains that the develop- 
mental anomalies observed by him were an artefact of the handhng techniques 
involved. As H. imbricata in laboratory conditions will readily shed scales, it seems not 
unlikely that they would also shed eggs normally brooded under the scales. Cazaux was 
unable to find any other point of distinction from normal H. imbricata. He did not 
give a description of the parent animals and, as noted by Daly (1972), did not describe 
those stages between the egg and the trochophore which correspond to the protected 
stage. 

After reconsidering our original proposals and responding to the comments, we 
believe that our request for the suppression of the name lepidota for the purposes of the 
Principle of Priority should stand. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



211 



Reply to a comment on the proposed precedence of Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901 
(Arachnida, Araneae) over i?/r^cAo*fica Simon, 1892 . ; x i ; > - 

(Case 2662; see BZN 46: 165-166, 189-190; 47: 126-127) ■ • ' - : . • ^ 

Herbert W. Levi 

Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 
02138, U.S.A. 

Otto Kraus 

Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitdt Hamburg, Martin- 
Luther-King-Platz 3 , D-2000 Hamburg 13 , Fed. Rep. Germany 

In his comment on this case Raven (BZN 47: 126-127) refers to the listing of 
Rhechostica in catalogues. However, the mentioning of names in catalogues, lists and 
nomenclators does not constitute usage for the purposes of the Principle of Priority (see 
Article 79c(2,i) of the Code). 

Raven's discussion of the usage of Eurypelma Koch, 1850 is not relevant to the 
proposed precedence of Aphonopelma over Rhechostica. As we pointed out before 
(BZN 46: 1 65, para. 4), Rhechostica had remained unused for 93 years until resurrected 
by Raven (1985). One of us (H.W.L.) has found that amongst North American 
arachnologists who have talked or written about this case all except one (R.C. West; see 
BZN 46: 190) support the rejection of Rhechostica. _ ; - ; ; , : 

Comment on the proposed conservation of Ixodes angustus Neumann, 1899 and 
/. woodi Bishopp, 1911 (Arachnida, Acari) by replacement of the holotype of 
/. angustus 

(Case 2696; see BZN 46: 167-169) .. , . „ 

G.B.White (Editor, Medical & Veterinary Entomology) - ., ' ■ . 

c/o The Royal Entomological Society, London SW7 SHU, U.K. j ' ' , \ 

Non-systematists become habituated to the name used for any species of applied 
importance. The knowledge of such species becomes embodied in textbooks and 
reports using the familiar name, so that any taxonomic reinterpretation of the species 
takes a while to become widely understood and accepted. Name changes for familiar 
species are therefore unpopular, but may be taxonomically necessary for biological 
reasons. Changes in usage of important species names are unjustifiable simply to fulfil 
the Principle of Priority and other rules of the Code. 

In the field of medical and veterinary entomology there are conspicuous precedents 
for replacement of type specimens in order to conserve the accepted meaning of a 
species name. For example, the case of the mosquito Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus, 1 762) 
involving designation of a neotype as proposed by Mattingly et al. (BZN 19: 208-219) 
was settled by Opinion 711 (1964). The case of Culex pipiens Linnaeus, 1758 involved 
designation of a neotype by Harbach et al. (1985) without recourse to the Commission. 
Both cases involved keeping the familiar name for a medically important species, 
despite conflicting evidence concerning the biological identity of original type 
specimens. 



212 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



The proposed conservation of the names Ixodes angustus Neumann, 1899 and 
/. woodi Bishopp, 1911, involving replacement of the holotype of /. angustus by the 
neotype proposed by Robbins & Keirans in keeping with accustomed usage, should be 
supported as the most expedient solution to the taxonomic problem raised by their 
observation that the holotypes of these nominally different species appear to be 
conspecific, whereas these two names have always been used unambiguously for two 
biologically distinct tick species of some medico-veterinary importance. 

Additional reference 

Harbach, R.E., Dahl, C. & White, G.B. 1985. Culex (Culex) pipiens Linnaeus (Diptera: 
Culicidae): concepts, type designations, and description. Proceedings of the Entomological 
Society of Washington, S7: 1-24. 

Comments on the conservation of the spelling of the specific name of Macrocheles 
robustulus (Berlese, 1904) (Arachnida, Acarina) 

(Case 2725; see BZN 47: 24^26) 

The proposed ruling that the accepted spelling of the specific name of the mite 
Macrocheles robustulus (Berlese, 1904) be deemed correct although it was first pub- 
fished as 'rubustulus' has been supported in letters received from 31 persons: Richard 
C. Axtell (North Carolina, U.S.A.); Gerald T. Baker (Misssissippi, U.S.A.); A.K. Datta 
{Assam, India); R.M. Emberson (Canterbury, New Zealand); G.P. Hall (Western 
Australia); Robert D. Hall (Missouri, U.S.A.); W. Hirschmann (Niirnberg, Fed. Rep. 
Germany); T.M. Ho (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia); E. Holm (New South Wales, 
Australia); Robert W. Husband (Michigan, U.S.A.); K.H. Hyatt (Wales, U.K.); H. 
Koehler (Bremen, Fed. Rep. Germany); G.W. Krantz (Oregon, U.S.A.); E.E. Lindquist 
(Ontario, Canada);M. Luxton (Liverpool, England);W . Niedbala (Poznan, Poland); Roy 
A. Norton (New York, U.S.A.); James H. Oliver, Jr. (Georgia, U.S.A.); J.C. Otto 
(Bremen, Fed. Rep. Germany); F. Pegazzano (Firenze, Italy); G.W. Ramsay (Auckland, 
New Zealand); M.K.P. Smith Meyer (Pretoria, South Africa); R.V. Southcott (South 
Australia); M. Spear (Pennsylvania, U.S.A.); Victor F. Stanis (Pennsylvania, U.S.A.); 
G. Takaku (Sapporo, Japan); P.D. Theron (Potchefstroom, South Africa); M.B. Usher 
(York, England); M.M.H. Wallace (Canberra, Australia); D.E. Walker (Florida, 
U.S.A.); F.E. Wendt (Bremen, Fed. Rep. Germany). 

Comment on the proposed conservation of Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 
(Crustacea, Isopoda) 

(Case 272 1 ; see BZN 47: 27-29) 

Jacques Forest 

Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 61 rue de Buffon, 75231 Paris, France 

Je me permets d'apporter un appui total a la proposition presentee par Martin & 
Kuck, visant a conserver le nom de Bathynomus, etabfi pour un genre dTsopode par 
A. Milne Edwards en 1879 et menace par une mise en synonymic recente avec le genre 
fossile Palaega Woodward, 1 870. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



213 



Je suis tout a fait d'accord avec Fargumentation des deux auteurs de la requete, 
retenant deux points principaux: 

1. La synonymic des deux genres est douteuse. 

2. Le nom de Bathynomns a ete applique de fagon continue a un nombrc croissant 
d'especes et son emploi est habituel dans la litterature carcinologique. 

Dans rinteret de la stabilite de la nomenclature, je souhaite vivement que la 
Commission preserve I'usage de Bathynomus. 

Comments on the proposed designation of Lysianax cubensis Stebbing, 1897 as the type 
species of Shoemakerella Pirlot, 1936 (Crustacea, Amphipoda) 

(Case 2711; see BZN 46: 236-238) , ' ' ' . ' 

(1) Richard C. Brusca 

Natural History Museum, P.O. Box 1390, San Diego, California 92112, U.S.A. 

I would like to state briefly my support for the proposition of Lowry & Stoddart 
favoring the designation of the nominal species Lysianax cubensis Stebbing, 1 897 as the 
type species of Shoemakerella Pirlot, 1936. 1 believe Lowry & Stoddart are correct in 
their assessment of the situation, and that other amphipod workers would welcome this 
official clarification of a long-standing problem. 

(2) Michael H. Thurston 

Institute of Oceanographic Sciences, Deacon Laboratory , Godalming, Surrey GU8 SUB, 
U.K. 

I support the case made for the designation of L. cubensis as the type species of 
Shoemakerella. 

It is clear that Pirlot (1936) based his concept of Shoemakerella on his own material 
and on the specimens received from Shoemaker. The separation of L. nasuta and 
L. cubensis is valid. While the illustrations provided by Dana lack much of the detail 
required by modern taxonomists, such detail as is given can be relied upon. The 
structure of uropod 3 provides an unequivocal separation of the two species. 

(3) Support for the proposals on BZN 46: 237 was also received from Prof Krzysztof 
Jazdzewski, UniwersytetLodzki,L6dz, Poland. 

Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Curculio viridicollis 
Fabricius, 1792 (currently Phyllobius viridicollis', Insecta, Coleoptera) 

(Case 2678; see BZN 46: 241-243) 

(1) M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga 

Seccion de Entomologia, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, J. Gutierrez Abascal 2, 
28006 Madrid, Spain . : ? ' 

I cannot support the application to conserve Fabricius's specific name viridicollis. 
We (entomologists and biologists in general) should be prepared to handle synonymies. 



214 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



even of common species. Moreover, a lectotype of Curculio cloropus Linnaeus, 1758 
has been designated, thereby fixing the identity of this species. I do not want to be 
an accompHce of Fabricius (and other authors) who made a large number of errors 
simply because of scientific procedure. If an error is found, it should be corrected in a 
publication, and be checked (and the correction accepted) by other workers interested 
in the same subject. 

I would Hke to call attention to the fact that the name Phyllobius cloropus has been 
used recently (Tempere & Pericart, 1989, pp. 47, 475) as the valid name for the species. 
These French authors took the logical attitude which I defend. 

Additional reference 

Tempere, G. & Pericart, J. 1989. Coleopteres Curculionidae, quatrieme partie. Fame de France, 
74: 1-534. 

(2) Editorial note 

Secretariat, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

The paper by Thompson & Alonso-Zarazaga ( 1 988), in which they demonstrated the 
synonymy between C. cloropus and C. viridicollis (and in which Thompson wrote (p. 84) 
that he proposed to apply to the Commission to be able to use the junior synonym 
viridicollis as the name for the species), is cited in the recently published update of 
Coleopteres Curculionidae (1989). Dr J. Pericart {10 rue Habert. F-77120 Montereau, 
France) has noted (in litt.) that he had accepted changes in the nomenclature resulting 
from strict compliance with the Principle of Priority, but only if they had been adopted 
in previous publications. In other cases, where the name in use was the younger 
synonym, he had kept that name although indicating that priority would dictate the 
senior synonym (unless there had been a Commission ruling to the contrary). 

According to this procedure he (Pericart) would have used the name viridicollis for 
the species but, by mistake, did not do so. Many changes had been needed during the 
printing of the publication and this particular one had been overlooked. He, himself, 
strongly favoured using the name viridicollis. 

Comment on the proposed precedence of Culicoides puncticollis (Becker, 1903) over 
C. algecirensis (Strobl, 1900) (Insecta, Diptera) 

(Case 2716; see BZN 46: 179-180, 47: 48) 

G.B. White (Editor, Medical & Veterinary Entomology) 

c/o The Royal Entomological Society, London SW7 SHU, U.K. 

I support Dr Doorman's appHcation to uphold Culicoides puncticollis (Becker, 1903) 
for two reasons: 

First, to maintain consistency in usage (Article 23b) of puncticollis as the specific 
name of a well known biting midge that 'is readily identified and not involved in any 
taxonomic problem' (BZN 46: 179, para. 4). 

Secondly, the application wisely allows for the possibility that C. algecirensis 
(Strobl, 1900) may, in the light of future studies, prove to be not synonymous with 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



215 



C. puncticollis. Biosystematics of haematophagous Diptera is increasingly complicated 
by the unveiling of sibling species complexes (see Service, 1988). In such cases, available 
synonyms may be ascribed appropriately to each newly recognised biological species 
comprising a complex. Until the specific integrity of C. puncticollis (sensu lato) is 
researched throughout its range in the Mediterranean, it will be advisable to give 
precedence to the name puncticollis but also to retain algecirensis. 

Additional reference / _ ^ ^ . , 

." " ' , ' ' ' ' . . /'■' ' ' ■ 

Service, M.W. 1989. Biosystematics of haematophagous insects. The Systematics Association 
special volume No. 37. xi, 363 pp. 



Comments on the proposed suppression of Culex peus Speiser, 1904 to conserve 
C. stigmatosoma Dyar, 1907 and C thriambus Dyar, 1921 (Insecta, Diptera) 

(Case 2702; see BZN 46: 247-249) ; . , ■ :; ,-.:_.-„; : r,. , . , , - 

(1) G.^.^h\it{^d\ior, Medical & Veterinary Entomology) "' . " ,' 

c/o The Royal Entomological Society, London SW7 SHU, U.K. . - 

It is a sad coincidence that the proposed suppression of Culex peus Speiser, 1904 
comes soon after the death in 1986 of Fritz Peus, doyen of German culicidologists. This 
American mosquito's name is merely a homonym, not an eponym, of the man's and 
there was no connection between them. 

A convincing argument is advanced by Eldridge & Harbach for upholding the name 
C. thriambus Dyar, 1921 and suppressing its senior synonym C. peus which had been 
misapplied to the more widespread and medically important species C. stigmatosoma 
Dyar, 1907 in most publications during the years 1958-1988. 

The alternative of designating the holotype of C. stigmatosoma as neotype of C. peus 
would involve setting aside the latter's holotype, an action likely to provoke some 
criticism, in order to sustain recent usage of the name C. peus. However, the standard 
textbook of North American mosquitoes by Carpenter & LaCasse (1955) had applied 
the name C. stigmatosoma as now proposed and some workers have continued with this 
usage throughout. We are told in the proposal that editors have quickly readopted the 
name C. stigmatosoma since it was reported by Strickman (1988) that C.peus is a senior 
synonym of C. thriambus and not of C. stigmatosoma. 

In view of the extensive literature pertaining to the species C. stigmatosoma, much 
of it published under the name C. peus, much confusion would arise if C. peus is now 
given precedence over C. thriambus. Therefore, I support the proposal to suppress C. 
peus. 

Additional reference 

Carpenter, S.J. & LaCasse, W.J. 1955. Mosquitoes of North America (north of Mexico). 
vi, 360 pp. University of California Press, Berkeley. _ . 



216 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



(2) Daniel Strickman 

Armed Forces Research Institute of Medical Sciences, APO San Francisco, California 
96346-5000, U.S.A. 

The authors of the application were kind enough to allow me to review their 
manuscript before it was published. I completely agree with their action. Their 
arguments are well-reasoned and pertinent. If the application is accepted, it will result 
in a useful stabilization of nomenclature for two important mosquito species of the 
northern hemisphere. 



Comments on the proposed confirmation of Griffithides longiceps Portlock, 1843 as the 
type species of Griffithides Portlock, 1843 (Trilobita) 

(Case 2762; see BZN 47: 1 14^1 16) 

(1) Sir James Stubblefield 

35 Kent Avenue, Ealing, London W13 8BE, U.K. 

I strongly support the proposal to accept Griffithides longiceps Portlock, 1 843 as the 
type species of Griffithides Portlock, 1843, and Asaphus globiceps Phillips, 1836 as the 
type species of Bollandia Reed, 1943. 

(2) H.B. Whittington 

Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge , Downing Street, Cambridge 
CB2 3EQ, U.K. 

I write in strong support of Case 2762, the application to conserve the meaning of 
the Carboniferous trilobite name Griffithides Portlock, 1843 by setting aside an over- 
looked type species designation. I believe it will be in the best interests of stability in 
nomenclature to take this action. 



Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 217 

OPINION 1608 > ; . 

Marssonopora Lang, 1914 (Bryozoa, Cheilostomata): Membranipora 
densispina Levinsen, 1925 designated as the type species 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the 
nominal genus Marssonopora Lang, 1914 are hereby set aside and Membranipora 
densispina Levinsen, 1925 is designated as type species. 

(2) The name Marssonopora Lang, 1914 (gender: feminine), type species by desig- 
nation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Membranipora densispina Levinsen, 
1925, is hereby placed on the Olficial List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name densispina Levinsen, 1 925, as published in the binomen Membranipora 
densispina (specific name of the type species of Marssonopora Lang, 1914), is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2657 " - ' 

An application for the designation of Membranipora densispina Levinsen, 1 925 as the 
type species of Marssonopora Lang, 1914 was received from Dr P.D. Taylor {The 
Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) & Prof E. Voigt {Universitdt Hamburg, 
Hamburg, Fed. Rep. Germany) on 8 April 1988. After correspondence the case was 
published in BZN 46: 88-90 (June 1989). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate 
journals. No comments were received. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 46: 89-90. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1 990 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, 
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, WiUink 

Negative votes — none. , - 

Schuster was on leave of absence. ; 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 

densispina, Membranipora, Levinsen, 1925, Kongelige Danslce Videnslcabernes Selskabs Skrifter, 

Naturvidensl<abelig og mathematisk Af deling, 8, 7: 316. 
Marssonopora Lang, 1914, Geological Magazine, NS, decade 6, 1: 438. 



218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 

OPINION 1609 



Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 and Hyphoplites Spath, 1922 (Mollusca, 
Ammonoidea): conserved 

Ruling 

(1) It is hereby ruled that A catalogue of the organic remains of the County of Wilts. 
by Benett (1831) is an available work. 

(2) Under the plenary powers the following names are hereby suppressed: 

(a) the generic name Drepanites Benett, 1831, and all other uses of that name prior to 
Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893, for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority 
and the Principle of Homonymy; 

(b) the specific name striatus Benett, 1831, as published in the binomen Drepanites 
striatus, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the 
Principle of Homonymy. 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 (gender: mascuhne), type species by subsequent 
designation by Diener (1915) Arpadites (Drepanites) Aja??/ Mojsisovics, 1893; 

(b) Hyphoplites Spath, 1922 (gender: masculine), type species by original desig- 
nation Ammonites falcatus Mantell, 1 822. 

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) hyatti Mojsisovics, 1893, as published in the binomen Arpadites (Drepanites) 
hyatti (specific name of the type species of Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893); 

(b) falcatus Mantell, 1 822, as published in the binomen Ammonites falcatus (specific 
name of the type species of Hyphoplites Spath, 1922). 

(5) The work A catalogue of the organic remains of the County of Wilts, by E. Benett 
( 1 83 1 ), as ruled in ( 1 ) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Works Approved as 
Available for Zoological Nomenclature. 

(6) The name Drepanites Benett, 1831, as suppressed in (2)(a) above, is hereby 
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 

(7) The name striatus Benett, 1 83 1 , as published in the binomen Drepanites striatus 
and as suppressed in (2)(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2668 

An application for the conservation of Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 and 
Hyphoplites Spath, 1922 was received from Drs E.E. Spamer & A.E. Bogan {Academy 
of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, U.S.A.) on 9 June 1988 and published in BZN 46: 
19-21 (March 1989). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

An opposing comment by Mr C.W. Wright {Beaminster, Dorset, U.K.) was pub- 
lished in BZN 46: 187-188 (September 1989), together with a reply by the Executive 
Secretary of the Commission. 

A comment was received from Prof D.T. Donovan {Department of Geological 
Sciences, University College London, London, U.K.), who noted that Miss Benett 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



219 



presented a copy of her 1831 Catalogue of the organic remains of the County of Wilts, to 
the British Museum, Bloomsbury, inscribed 'British Museum, from the Author', 
indicating her wish for the work to be publicly available. 

A recent publication (reference below) by the authors of the application and one 
other has given in detail the background to Benett's work and the extensive way in 
which it was distributed and taken note of by her contemporaries. The paper docu- 
ments the large number of taxa established by Benett, and cites the present localities of 
her collection which includes type material for species proposed by her and subsequent 
authors; Z)re/?fl«/to Benett is discussed on p. 144 et seq. 

Spamer, E.E., Bogan, A.E. & Torrens, H.S. 1989. Recovery of the Eltheldred Benett 
collection of fossils mostly from Jurassic-Cretaceous strata of Wiltshire, England, 
analysis of the taxonomic nomenclature of Benett (1831), and notes and figures of 
type specimens contained in the collection. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural 
Sciences of Philadelphia, 141: 1\5-IS0. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 46: 20. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1990 the 
votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de 
Souza (in part), MinelH, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, 
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — 2: Kabata and Martins de Souza (in part). 

Schuster was on leave of absence. 

Martins de Souza said there did not appear sufficient reason to suppress the name 
Drepanites Benett, 1831 to conserve Drepa/j/to Mojsisovics, 1893. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names and work placed on Official Lists and 
Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

Drepanites Benett, 1831, /I catalogue of the organic remains of the County of Wilts., p. 3, pi. 16. 
Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893, Abhandhmgen der Kaiserlich-KonigUchen Geologischen 
Reichsanstah, 6(2): 495. 

falcatus, Ammonites, Mantell, 1822, The fossils of the South Downs; or illustrations of the geology 

of Sussex, p. 1 17, pi. 21, figs. 6, 12. 
hyatti, Arpadites (Drepanites) , Mojsisovics, 1893, Abhandlungen der Kaiserlich-KonigUchen 

Geologischen Reichsanstalt, 6(2): 495. 
Hyplioplites Spath, 1922, Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 53(6): 110. 
striatus. Drepanites, Benett, 1831, /i catalogue of the organic remains of the County ofWUts., p. 3, 

pi. 16. 

Benett, E. 1 83 1 . /I catalogue of the organic remains of the County of Wilts, iv, 9 pp., 1 8 pis. Vardy, 
Warminster. - , . 

The following is the reference for the designation of Drepanites hyatti as the type species of 
Drepanites y[o']S\io\\cs, 1893: 

Diener, C. 1915. Cephalopoda triadica. In Freeh, F. (Ed.), Fossilium catalogus. 1. Animalia. (8), 
p. 129. 



220 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



OPINION 1610 

Valanginites Sayn in Kilian, 1910 (Mollusca, Ammonoidea): authorship 
of the genus confirmed, and Ammonites nucleus Roemer, 1841 
confirmed as the type species 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that: 

(a) the specific name nucleus Phillips, 1 829, as published in the binomen Ammonites 
nucleus, and all other uses of that name prior to Ammonites nucleus Roemer, 
1841, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and 
the Principle of Homonymy; 

(b) all designations of type species for the nominal genus Valanginites Sayn in 
KiUan, 1910 before that of Ammonites nucleus Roemer, 1841 by Roman (1938) 
are hereby set aside. 

(2) The name Valanginites Sayn in Kilian, 1910 (gender: masculine), type species 
Ammonites nucleus Roemer, 1841 by the ruling in (l)(b) above, is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name nucleus Roemer, 1 84 1 , as published in the binomen Ammonites nucleus 
(specific name of the type species of Valanginites Sayn in Kilian, 1910), is hereby placed 
on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The name nucleus Phillips, 1 829, as published in the binomen Ammonites nucleus 
and as suppressed in (l)(a) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2403 

An application for the confirmation of Sayn in Kilian (1910) as the author of the 
nominal genus Valanginites, and of Ammonites nucleus Roemer, 1841 as its type 
species, was received from Drs P.F. 'KdiSNSon {University College London, London, U.K.) 
and E. Kemper (Bundesanstalt fiir Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe, Hannover, Fed. 
Rep. Germany) on 18 January 1982. After correspondence, and a delay arising from a 
move by the senior author, the case was published in BZN 46: 91-93 (June 1989). 
Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Comments in support were 
received from Mr C.W. Wright {Beaminster, Dorset, U.K.) and Dr M.K. Howarth (T/ze 
Natural History Museum, London, U.K.). 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 46: 92. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1990 the 
votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 
Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, Thompson, 
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — 1 : Macpherson. 

Schuster was on leave of absence. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



221 



Original references - ' ' - 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

nucleus. Ammonites, Phillips, 1829, Illustrations of the Geology of Yorkshire, p. 174. 
nucleus. Ammonites, Roemer, 1841, Die Versteinerungen des Norddeutschen Kreidegebirges, part 
2, p. 87. 

Valanginites Sayn in Kilian, 1910, Lethaea geognostica, Teil 2 (Das Mesozoicum), Band 3 
(Kreide), Liefrung 2, p. 194. 

The following is the reference for the designation of Ammonites nucleus Roemer, 1841 as the 
type species of Ka/flngw/to: 

Roman,F. 1938. Les ammonites jurassiques et cretacees. Essai de genera, p. 3S6. ' , ' 



222 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



OPINION 1611 

Heliophanus kochii Simon, 1868 (Arachnida, Araneae): specific name 
conserved 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name albosignatus L. Koch, 1867, as 
published in the binomen Heliophanus albosignatus, is hereby suppressed for the 
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name kochii Simon, 1 868, as published in the binomen Heliophanus kochii, is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name albosignatus L. Koch, 1867, as published in the binomen Heliophanus 
albosignatus and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2647 

An application for the conservation of the specific name of one of the jumping 
spiders, Heliophanus kochii Simon, 1 868, but with the spelling kochi, was received from 
Dr J. Proszyhski (Zakiad Zoologii WSPR, Siedlce, Poland) on 4 March 1988. The 
application sought the suppression of the senior subjective synonym albosignatus 
L. Koch, 1 867. After correspondence che case was published in BZN 46: 108-109 (June 
1989). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

The application was supported by Mr F.R. Wanless {Department of Zoology, The 
Natural History Museum, London, U.K.). 

It was noted on the voting papers that a recent major monograph by Wesolowska 
(1986) on the genus Heliophanus C.L. Koch, 1835 uses the spelling kochi; see also BZN 
46:108-109, para. 5. 

The proposals of para. 6 on BZN 46: 109, (l)(a) for the suppression of the specific 
name albosignatus L. Koch, 1867, and (l)(b) that kochi should be deemed to be the 
correct spelUng of the specific name first published as kochii by Simon (1868), were 
presented separately for voting. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals pubUshed in BZN 46: 109, amended as above. At the close of the voting 
period on 1 June 1990 the votes were as follows: 

Proposal (l)(a). Affirmative votes — 19: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Martins de Souza, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, 
Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, WilHnk 

Negative votes — 7: Cogger, Holthuis, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Minelli 
and Ueno. 

Proposal (l)(b). Affirmative votes — 13: Bock, CorUss, Halvorsen, Kraus, Lehtinen, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink 

Negative votes — 13: Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, 
Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mroczkowski, Savage and Ueno. 

Schuster was on leave of absence. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 223 

Proposal (l)(a) was thus carried, but since there was no majority for proposal (l)(b) 
the name kochii Simon, 1 868 is conserved with its original spelling. 

Dupuis abstained from both votes, commenting 'Je crains que les habitudes de 
Simon, en matiere de nomenclature, aient comporte beaucoup de precipitation et 
diverses negligences. Je ne peux done pas me prononcer sur la confiance aveugle qu'on 
parait lui accorder en matiere de taxonomie'. Heppell commented that 'the Commis- 
sion should not be asked to rule on the correct spelling of individual specific names 
which differ only in an -/ or termination. It is already difficult enough in many cases 
to discover which variant is the correct original spelling, and to require zoologists to 
consult also the Official Lists for such a trivial matter seems quite wrong. Many zool- 
ogists (and zoological editors) routinely employ a single -/' termination because of their 
incorrect interpretation of the rules. Others believe that the -i and -// terminations can 
simply be regarded as permissible alternatives. It would be far better to have such a 
simple remedy to this vexed and continuing problem than to have individual cases 
determined piecemeal on the basis of perceived usage'. 

Original references ^ 

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

albosignatus , Heliophanus, L. Koch, 1867, Verhandlungen der Zoologisch-Botanischen 

Gesellschaft in Wien, 17: 871. 
kochii, Heliophanus, Simon, 1868, Annales de la Societe Entomologique de France, (4)8: 699. 



224 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



OPINION 1612 

Attus penicillatus Simon, 1875 (currently Sitticus penicillatus^ 
Arachnida, Araneae): specific name conserved 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed 
for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of 
Homonymy: 

(a) illibatus Simon, 1868, as published in the binomen Attus illibatus; 

(b) inequalipes Simon, 1868, as published in the binomen Attus inequalipes; 

(c) guttatus Thorell, 1 875, as published in the binomen A ttus guttatus. 

(2) The name penicillatus Simon, 1875, as published in the binomen Attus 
penicillatus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) illibatus Simon, 1868, as pubUshed in the binomen Attus illibatus and as 
suppressed in (l)(a) above; 

(b) inequalipes Simon, 1868, as published in the binomen Attus inequalipes and as 
suppressed in (l)(b) above; 

(c) guttatus Thorell, 1875, as published in the binomen Attus guttatus and as 
suppressed in (l)(c) above. 

History of Case 2648 

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Attus penicillatus Simon, 
1875 was received from Dr J. Proszyhski {Zaklad Zoologii WSPR, Siedlce, Poland) on 
4 March 1988. After correspondence the case was published in BZN46: 110-111 (June 
1989). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

The application was supported by Mr F.R. Wanless {Department of Zoology, The 
Natural History Museum, London, U.K.). 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 46: 1 1 1 . At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1990 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 18: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, 
Kabata, Kraus, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Starobogatov, 
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink 

Negative votes — 8: Cogger, Holthuis, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Mroczkowski, Savage and Ueno. 

Schuster was on leave of absence. 

Dupuis abstained: Simon's nomenclatural acts had caused very many problems (see 
comment on BZN 47: 223). Ueno noted that the types of all the nominal species were 
preserved in major museums, and commented that future specialists might conclude 
that the taxa concerned were distinct. Cogger and Mroczkowski agreed, adding that 
the applicant's aim could be met by giving precedence to the name penicillatus. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



225 



Original references ' 

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

giittatus, Attus, Thorell, 1875, Horae Societatis Entomologicae Rossicae, 11: 1 19. 
illibatus, Attus, Simon, 1 868, Annates de la Societe Entomologique de France, (4)8: 541 . - 
inequalipes, Attus, Simon, 1868, Annates de la Societe Entomologique de France, (4)8: 614. 
penicillatus, Attus, Simon, 1875, Annales de la Societe Entomologique de France, (5)5: xcii. 
Bulletin des Seances (Seance du 28 Avril 1875). 



226 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



OPINION 1613 

Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898: conserved, and 
Pseudaugaptilus longiremis Sars, 1907: specific name conserved (both 
Crustacea, Copepoda) 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the following names are hereby suppressed for the 
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: 

(a) the generic name Isochaeta Giesbrecht, 1 889; 

(b) the specific name longisetosus Thompson, 1903, as published in the binomen 
Isochaeta longisetosus. 

(2) The name Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898 (gender: 
feminine), type species by indication (Article 67h) Leuckartia flavicornis Claus, 1 863, is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) flavicornis Claus, 1863, as published in the binomen Leuckartia flavicornis 
(specific name of the type species of Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht & 
Schmeil, 1898); 

(b) longiremis Sars, 1907, as published in the binomen Pseudaugaptilus longiremis. 

(4) The name lucicutiidae Sars, 1902 (type genus Lucicutia Giesbrecht in 
Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group 
Names in Zoology. 

(5) The name Isochaeta Giesbrecht, 1889, as suppressed in (l)(a) above, is hereby 
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 

(6) The name longisetosus Thompson, 1903, as published in the binomen Isochaeta 
longisetosus and as suppressed in (l)(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2666 

An application for the conservation of Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht & 
Schmeil, 1898 and Pseudaugaptilus longiremis Sars, 1907 was received from Dr 
K. Hulsemann (Biologische Anstalt Helgoland, Hamburg, Fed. Rep. Germany) on 25 
May 1988 and pubUshed in BZN 46: 97-100 (June 1989). Notice of the case was sent to 
appropriate journals. No comments were received. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 46: 98-99. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1990 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 22: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Halvorsen, Heppell, 
Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, 
Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — 5: Cogger, Hahn, Holthuis, Lehtinen and Mahnert. 

Schuster was on leave of absence. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



227 



Original references ' 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official 
Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

flavicornis, Leuckartia, Claus, 1863, Die Frei Lebenden Copepoden mit Besonderer 
Beriicksichtigimg der Fauna Deutschlands, der Nordsee und des Mittelmeeres, p. 183. 

Isochaeta G'lQshvQchi, 1889, Attidella Reale Accademia dei Lincei, (4)5(11), semestre 1: 812. 

longiremis, Pseudaugaptilus, Sars, 1907, Bulletin de rinstitut Oceanographique, 101: 24. 

longisetosus, Isocliaeta, Thompson, 1903, The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 
(7)12(67): 26. , , . 

LMc/a/r/fl Giesbrecht /« Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898, r/erre/c7z, 6: 1 10. 

LUCICUTIIDAE Sars, 1902, An account of the Crustacea of Norway, vol. 4 (Copepoda, Calanoida), 
parts 7 and 8 (Centropagidae and Diaptomidae), p. 73. 



228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 

OPINION 1614 



Trapezia Latreille, 1828 (Crustacea, Decapoda): conserved 
Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Trapecia Berthold, 1827 is hereby 
suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle 
of Homonymy. 

(2) The name Trapezia Latreille, 1828 (gender: feminine), type species by sub- 
sequent designation by H. Milne Edwards (1842) Trapezia dentifrons Latreille, 1828 (a 
junior subjective synonym of Cancer cymodoce Herbst, 1801), is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name cymodoce Herbst, 1 80 1 , as published in the binomen Cancer cymodoce 
(senior subjective synonym of the specific name of Trapezia dentifrons Latreille, 1828, 
the type species of Trapezia Latreille, 1828), is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The name Trapecia Berthold, 1827, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed 
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2542/2 

An application for the conservation of Trapezia Latreille, 1 828 was submitted by 
Miss R.A. Cooper {formerly of the Secretariat, I. C.Z.N.) following the discovery that 
Case 2542 (see BZN 44: 95-96), which proposed to eliminate the homonymy between 
TRAPEZiiDAE in decapods and bivalves, could not otherwise be completed. The case was 
pubHshed in BZN 46: 104-105 (June 1989). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate 
journals. No comments were received. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 46: 105. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1990 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, 
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, WilUnk 

Negative votes — none. 

Schuster was on leave of absence. 

See also Opinion 1615, BZN 47: 229-230 for the family-group name trapeziidae 
Miers, 1886. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

cymodoce, Cancer, Herbst, 1801, Versuch einer Naturgeschichte der Krabben und Krebse, vol. 3, 
part 2, p. 22. 

Trapecia Berthold, 1827, Latreille's natiirliche Familien des Thierreichs aus dem Franzdsischen 

mit Anmerkungen und Zusdtzen, p. 255. 
Trapezia Latreille, 1828, Encyclopedie methodique d'Histoire naturelle ( Insectes), vol. 10, p. 695. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



229 



OPINION 1615 r . ; ■y^:^-:^!:: ^' 

TRAPEZiiDAE Miers, 1886 (Crustacea, Decapoda) and trapeziidae 
Lamy, 1920 (MoUusca, Bivalvia): homonymy removed 

Ruling '-.■.I-,-.,:-?..,. . . , -v. ■■ ■ \ 

(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the stem of the generic name 
Trapezium Megerle von Miihlfeld, 1811 for the purposes of Article 29 is Trapez-. 

(2) The name Trapezium Megerle von Miihlfeld, 1811 (gender: neuter), type species 
by subsequent designation by Stewart (1930) Trapezium perfectum Megerle von 
Miihlfeld, 1811 (a junior subjective synonym of Chama oblonga Linnaeus, 1758), is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name oblonga Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Chama oblonga 
(senior subjective synonym of the specific name of Trapezium perfectum Mergerle von 
Miihlfield, 1811, the type species of Trapezium Megerle von Miihlfield, 181 1), is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group 
Names in Zoology: 

(a) TRAPEZIIDAE Micrs, 1886, type genus Trapezia Latreille, 1828 (Crustacea); 

(b) TRAPEZIDAE Lamy, 1920, type genus Trapezium Megerle von Miihlfeld, 1811 
(Mollusca), spelling emended by the ruUng in (1) above. 

History of Case 2542 

An application to remove the homonymy between trapeziidae Miers, 1886 
(Crustacea) and trapeziidae Lamy, 1920 (Mollusca) was received from Dr 
G.J. Morgan {Western Australian Museum, Perth, Australia) on 9 December 1985. 
After correspondence the case was pubfished in BZN 44: 95-96 (June 1987). Notice of 
the case was sent to appropriate journals. A supportive comment was received from Dr 
L.B. Holthuis, who suggested that a moUuscan family name of trapeziumidae would 
avoid possible future homonymy with a family name which might be derived from the 
hemipteran genus Trapezus Distant, 1882. However, Trapezus was synonymised with 
Cryphula Stal, 1874 by Barber in 1918 (see Slater, J. A., 1964, Lygaeidae of the World, 
vol. 2, p. 814). 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 44: 95-96. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1988 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 17: Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, 
Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, 
Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — none. ' . 

No votes were received from Dupuis, Gruchy and Trjapitzin. 
Cogger, Holthuis and Thompson were on leave of absence. 

The vote was thus unanimous, but problems with both the type species and the date 
of the crustacean genus Trapezia were found after voting. Consequently no Opinion 



230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 

was published, and a second case was published to resolve these problems (see BZN 46: 
104-105). The Opinion 1614 relating to the second case is now published (see BZN 47: 
228), and the Opinion resulting from the 1988 vote is now completed. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 

oblonga, Chama, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 692. 

TRAPEZIDAE Lamy, 1920, Journal de Conchyliologie , 64(4): 265 (as trapeziidae). 

TRAPEZiiDAE Miers, 1886, Report of the Scientific Results of the Voyage of HMS Challenger, 

(Zoology, Part 49), vol. 17, p. 163. 
Trapezium Megerle von Miihlfeld, 1811, Magazin fiir die neuesten Entdecklungen in der 

gesammten Naturkunde von Der Gesellschaft Naturforschaft Freunde zu Berlin, 5: 68. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



231 



OPINION 1616 " ' : /; : ; ^ ' ' - 

Ptochus Schonherr, 1826 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Ptochus porcellus 
Boheman in Schonherr, 1834 confirmed as the type species 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers all fixations of type species for the nominal genus 
Ptochus Schonherr, 1826 prior to the designation of Ptochus porcellus Boheman in 
Schonherr, 1834 by Marshall (1916) are hereby set aside. 

(2) The name Ptochus Schonherr, 1826 (gender: mascuHne), type species by 
subsequent designation by Marshall (1916) Ptochus porcellus Boheman in Schonherr, 
1834, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name porcellus Boheman in Schonherr, 1834, as published in the binomen 
Ptochus porcellus (specific name of the type species of Ptochus Schonherr, 1826), is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2646 

An application for the confirmation of Ptochus porcellus Boheman in Schonherr, 
1834 as the type species of Ptochus Schonherr, 1826 was received from Mr 
R.T. Thompson {The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) on 24 February 1988. 
After correspondence the case was published in BZN 46: 28-29 (March 1989). Notice 
of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment in support was received from 
Dr Miguel A. Alonso-Zarazaga (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, 
Spain) who noted that conservation of the accepted meaning of Ptochus Schonherr, 
1826 would help to stabilise the generic nomenclature of weevils, which is confused at 
present. 

It was noted on the voting paper that the genus Ptochus has been treated in a number 
of major publications and that it is the type genus of the large tribe ptochini Reitter, 
1912, which includes some 20 genera and 400 species. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 46: 29. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1 990 the 
votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, 
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — 1: Thompson - • 

Schuster was on leave of absence. - . ; . .. " 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 

porcellus, Ptochus, Boheman in Schonherr, 1 834, Genera et species Curculionidum cum synonymia 
hujus familiae, vol. 2, part 1 , p. 483. 



232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 

Ptochus Schonherr, 1826, Curculionidum dispositio methodica cum generum characteribus, 
descriptionibus atque observationibus variis, p. 188. 

The following is the reference for the designation of Ptochus porcellus as the type species of 

Ptochus: 

Marshall, G.A.K. 1916. The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Coleoptera. 
Rhynchophora: Curculionidae (part 1), p. 259. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



233 



OPINION 1617 " v.. v.;;- , , ■ .-.:,,<>--^-^;.>- : -'^y^. C^- 

Rosema Walker, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): given precedence over 
Z^/ica Hiibner, [1825] and i?/ff7^fl/f a Hiibner, [1825] 

Ruling V" : ■ 

( 1 ) Under the plenary powers the generic name Rosema Walker, 1 8 55 is hereby given 
precedence over Zelica Hiibner, [1825] and Rhogalia Hiibner, [1825] whenever it is 
considered to be a synonym of either of the latter names. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) Rosema Walker, 1855 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent desig- 
nation by Kirby ( 1 892) Rosema dorsalis Walker, 1 855, with the endorsement that 
it is to be given precedence over Zelica Hiibner, [1825] and Rhogalia Hiibner, 
[1825] whenever it is considered to be a synonym of either of the latter names; 

(b) Zelica Hiibner, [1825] (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Phalaena 
zelica Stoll, [1790], with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over 
Rosema Walker, 1855, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; 

(c) Rhogalia Hiibner, [1 825] (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Phalaena 
epigena Stoll, [1 790], with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over 
Rosema Walker, 1855, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms. 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) dorsalis Walker, 1855, as published in the binomen Rosema dorsalis (specific 
name of the type species of Rosema Walker, 1855); 

(b) zelica Stoll, [1 790], as published in the binomen Phalaena zelica (specific name of 
the type species of Zelica Hiibner, [1825]); 

(c) epigena Stoll, [1790], as published in the binomen Phalaena epigena (specific 
name of the type species of Rhogalia Hiibner, [1825]). 

History of Case 2665 

An application for Rosema Walker, 1855 to be given precedence over two senior 
subjective synonyms was received from Dr P. Thiaucourt {Museum National d'Histoire 
Naturelle, Paris, France) on 16 May 1988 and published in BZN 46: 123-125 (June 
1 989). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. 

Decision of the Commission ' , ~ 

On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 46: 124. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1990 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Coriiss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell (in part), Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, 
Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride (in part). 
Savage, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

Schuster was on leave of absence. 



234 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1 990 



Ride and Heppell would have preferred outright suppression of Zelica and Rhogalia. 
Heppell commented: 'No reason is given why Rosema should not be conserved simply 
by the suppression of Zelica and Rhogalia. Indeed, from the evidence presented this 
would seem by far the best solution. There are no complications at either family or 
species level, and there has been no usage of the senior generic names this century. Let 
us leave the always complicating procedure of conditional precedence only for those 
few cases where there is real doubt about the consequences of suppressing a senior 
subjective synonym'. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on OfRcial Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 

dorsalis, Rosema, Walker, 1855, List of the specimens of lepidopterous insects in the collection of 

the British Museum, part 4, p. 1 168. 
epigena, Phalaena, StoU, [1790], Aanhangsel van het Werk, de Uitlandsche Kapellen, voorkomende 

in de drie Waereld-Deelen Asia, Africa en America, door den Heere Pieter Cramer, p. 72. 
Rhogalia Hiibner, [1825], Verzeichniss bekannter Schmetterlinge, p. 396. 

Rosema Walker, 1 855, List of the specimens of lepidopterous insects in the collection of the British 

Museum, part 4, p. 1 1 59. 
zelica, Phalaena, Stoll, [1790], Aanhangsel van het Werk, de Uitlandsche Kapellen, voorkomende in 

de drie Waereld-Deelen Asia, Africa en America, door den Heere Pieter Cramer, p. 73. 
Zelica Hiibner, [1825], Verzeichniss bekannter Schmetterlinge, p. 396. 

The following is the reference for the designation of Rosema dorsalis as the type species of 

Rosema: 

Kirby, W.F. 1892. A synonymic catalogue of Lepidoptera Heterocera (Moths), vol. 1 (Sphinges 
and Bombyces), p. 581. 



I 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



235 



OPINION 1618 ' ■ V'-:-:'' 

ProtocalUphora Hough, 1899 (Insecta, Diptera) and its type species 
Musca azurea Fallen, 1817: usage conserved by the designation of a 
replacement lectotype 

Ruling 

( 1 ) Under the plenary powers all designations of lectotype for Musca azurea Fallen, 
1817 prior to that by Sabrosky ( 1 956) are hereby set aside. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) ProtocalUphora Hough, 1899 (gender: feminine), type species by original desig- 
nation Musca azurea Fallen, 1817; 

(b) Protophormia Townsend, 1908 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy 
Phormia terraenovae Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830. 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) azurea Fallen, 1 8 1 7, as published in the binomen Musca azurea (specific name of 
the type species of ProtocalUphora Hough, 1 899) and as defined by the lectotype 
designated by Sabrosky (1956); 

(b) terraenovae Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, as published in the binomen Phormia 
terraenovae (specific name of the type species of Protophormia Townsend, 1908). 

History of Case 2658 

An application for the conservation of usage of ProtocalUphora Hough, 1 899 and its 
type species Musca azurea Fallen, 1817 by the designation of a replacement lectotype 
was received from Dr C.W. Sabrosky {Systematic Entomology Laboratory , U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Washington, B.C., U.S.A.) on 26 April 1988. After corre- 
spondence the case was published in BZN 46: 126-129 (June 1989). Notice of the case 
was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals pubHshed in BZN 46: 129. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1990 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, 
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink . 

Negative votes — none. . V 

Schuster was on leave of absence. 

Original references f 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 

azurea, Musca, Fallen, 1817, Kongliga Vetenskaps Akademiens Handlingar, 1816: 245. 



236 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



Protocalliphora Hough, 1899, Entomological News, 10: 65. 

Protophormia Townscnd, 1908, Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, no. 1803, 51(2): 123. 
terraenovae, Phormia, Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, Memoires presentes par divers savans a 
I'Academie Royale des Sciences de I'Institut de France, 2: 467. 

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Musca azurea Fallen, 
1817: 

Sabrosky, C.W. 1956. Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London, (B)25(9-10): 
178. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



237 



OPINION1619 ... 

Euribia jaceana Hering, 1935 (currently Urophora jaceana; Insecta, 
Diptera): specific name given precedence over Euribia conyzae Hering, 
1933 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific nsLmt jaceana Hering, 1935, as published 
in the binomen Euribia jaceana, is hereby given precedence over the specific name 
conyzae Hering, 1933, as published in the binomen Euribia conyzae, whenever the two 
names are considered to be synonyms. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) jaceana Hering, 1935, as published in the binomen Euribia jaceana, with the 
endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the specific name conyzae 
Hering, 1933, as published in the binomen Euribia conyzae, whenever the two 
names are considered to be synonyms; 

(b) conyzae Hering, 1933, as published in the binomen Euribia conyzae, with the 
endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the specific name jaceana 
Hering, 1935, as published in the binomen Euribia jaceana, whenever the two 
names are considered to be synonyms. 

History of Case 2680 v 

An application to give precedence to Euribia jaceana Hering, 1935 over E. conyzae 
Hering, 1933 was received from Drs I.M. White {CAB Institute of Entomology, London, 
U.K.) & P. Harris {Agricultural Research Station, Regina, Canada) on 6 September 
1988. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 46: 30-32 (March 1989). 
Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 46: 3 1 . At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1 990 the 
votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Lehtinen, Martins de Souza, Minelli, 
Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, 
Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — 3: Kabata, Macpherson and Mahnert. - 
Schuster was on leave of absence. ' ■ , . r 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 

conyzae, Euribia, Hering, 1933, Amateur de Papillons, 6; 309. 

Jaceana, Euribia,Henng, 1935, Mdrkische Tierwelt, I. \69. ■ > - 



238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1 990 

OPINION 1620 



Monograptus exiguus (Graptolithina): accepted usage conserved by 
citation of Lap worth (1876) as author 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the subspecific name exiguus Nicholson, 1868, as 
published in the combination Graptolites lobiferus Var. P exiguus, and all other uses of 
that name before its publication by Lapworth (1876), are hereby suppressed for the 
purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name exiguus Lapworth, 1876, as published in the binomen Monograptus 
exiguus and as interpreted by the lectotype designated in BZN 46: 33, para. 6, is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name exiguus Nicholson, 1868, as published in the combination Graptolites 
lobiferus Var. P exiguus, and as suppressed in ( 1 ) above, is hereby placed on the Official 
Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2674 

An application for the conservation of the accepted usage of Monograptus exiguus 
by the citation of Lapworth (1876) as author was received from Mr D.K. Loydell 
{University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, Wales, U.K.) on 27 July 1988. After corre- 
spondence the case was published in BZN 46: 33-34 (March 1989). Notice of the case 
was sent to appropriate journals. A comment in support from Dr Margaret Sudbury 
(Rickmansworth, C/.^.) was published in BZN 46: 191-192. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals pubhshed in BZN 46: 34. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1990 the 
votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de 
Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, Thompson, 
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — 1 : Holthuis 

Schuster was on leave of absence. 

Holthuis would have preferred a neotype selection for the nominal species 
Graptolites exiguus Nicholson, 1868, and continued attribution of exiguus to 
Nicholson. 

Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

exiguus, Graptolites lobiferus Var. P, Nicholson, 1 868, Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society 

of London, 24: 533. 
exiguus, Monograptus, Lapworth, 1876, Geological Magazine, (2)3: 503. 



Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 239 

OPINION 1621 

Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes, Osteoglossiformes): 
Osteoglossum bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829 designated as the type species 

Ruling ■ '-?"'r-;^ • - 

(1) Under the plenary powers: " • 

(a) all first reviser actions regarding the specific names vandellii Cuvier, 1 829, as 
published in the binomen Osteoglossum vandellii, and bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1 829, 
as published in combination with the manuscript generic name Ischnosoma, are 
hereby set aside, and it is ruled that bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829 is to be deemed a 
senior objective synonym of vandellii Cuvier, 1 829; 

(b) Osteoglossum bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829 is hereby designated as the type species 
of the nominal genus Oj'/eog/oj'j'ww Cuvier, 1829. 

(2) The name Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829 (gender: neuter), type species by desig- 
nation under the plenary powers in (l)(b) above, Osteoglossum bicirrhosum Cuvier, 
1829, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829, as published in the binomen 'Ischnosoma' 
bicirrhosum (specific name of the type species of Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829) is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. ;r 

(4) The name vandellii Cuvier, 1829, as published in the binomen Osteoglossum 
vandellii, and as ruled in (l)(a) above to be a junior objective synonym of bicirrhosum 
Cuvier, 1829, as published in the binomen 'Ischnosomd' bicirrhosum, is hereby placed 
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2659 

An application for the fixation of Osteoglossum bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829 as the type 
species of Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829 was received from Dr M. Kottelat {Zoologische 
Staatssammlung , MUnchen, Fed. Rep. Germany) on 28 April 1988. After correspon- 
dence the case was published in BZN 46: 130-131 (June 1989). Notice of the case was 
sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. 

With regard to Proposal (l)(a) of BZN 46: 130, para. 4: a simpler course in this case 
would have been to suppress the unused specific name vandellii Cuvier, 1829 (except for 
the purposes of homonymy). The author of the apphcation would not accept this 
suggestion. Both specific names vandellii and bicirrhosum are available as from Cuvier, 
1829 (the latter under Article 1 le of the Code), and are thus objective synonyms (i.e. 
two names for the same taxon). The first reviser action of Agassiz (1831; see para. 2) 
gave precedence to vandellii, but this was never followed and the application sought to 
follow universal usage by setting aside the action of Agassiz. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 46: 130-131. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 
1990 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 21: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corhss, Hahn, Halvorsen, 
Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, 
Nielsen, Nye, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, WilUnk 



240 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 



Negative votes — 4: Holthuis, Kabata, Ride and Savage. 
Schuster was on leave of absence. 

Dupuis abstained because, although he supported the aims of the proposals, he 
considered that the authorship of the name bicirrhosum should be 'Spix in Cuvier, 1 829' 
and not simply 'Cuvier, 1829' [however. Article 50g of the Code specifies the latter 
citation]. Heppell, Holthuis, Ride and Savage said (in agreement with a comment by 
the Executive Secretary on the voting papers) that the name vandellii should have been 
suppressed for purposes of priority. Partly for this reason, and partly because since 
Cuvier (1829) had pubhshed two binomina the Commission could not 'confirm 
O. bicirrhosum as the type species of Osteoglossum by monotypy' (proposal (l)(b) on 
BZN 46: 130), Heppell abstained and Holthuis, Ride and Savage voted against. From 
an entirely formal point of view two new nominal species were established in Cuvier's 
paper, even though both specific names referred to the same taxon (i.e. they are objec- 
tive synonyms). The Commission's vote adopted O. bicirrhosum as the type species of 
Osteoglossum and the Ruling records this decision. 



Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

bicirrhosum, Ischnosoma, Cuvier, 1829, Le regne animal distribue d'apres son organisation pour 
servir de base d I'histoire naturelle des animaux et d'introduction a I'anatomie comparee, Ed. 2, 
vol. 2, p. 328. 

Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1 829, Le regne animal distribue d'apres son organisation pour servir de base 
a I'histoire naturelle des animaux et d'introduction a I'anatomie comparee, Ed. 2, vol. 2, p. 328. 

vandellii, Osteoglossum, Cuvier, 1829, Le regne animal distribue d'apres son organisation pour 
servir de base a I'histoire naturelle des animaux et d'introduction a I 'anatomic comparee, Ed. 2, 
vol. 2, p. 328. 



Contents — continued 



Rulings of the Commission 

Opinion 1608. Marssonopora Lang, 1914 (Bryozoa, Cheilostomata): Membranipora 



ii?e«5/5/7/«a Levinsen, 1925 designated as the type species 217 

Opinion 1609. Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 and Hyphoplites Spath, 1922 (Mollusca, 

Ammonoidea): conserved '. . 218 

Opinion 1610. ValanginitesSayn'mKWian, 1910 (Mollusca, Ammonoidea): authorship 

of the genus confirmed, and Ammonites nucleus Roemer, 1841 confirmed as the type 

species 220 

Opinion 1611. Heliophanus kochii Simon, 1868 (Arachnida, Araneae): specific name 

conserved 222 

Opinion \6\2. Attus penicillatusSimon, \ %1 5 (cximnXXy Sitticus penicillatus, Ar&chmda., 

Araneae); specific name conserved 224 

Opinion 1613. Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898: conserved, and 

Pseudaugaptilus longiremis Sars, 1907: specific name conserved (both Crustacea, 

Copepoda) 226 

Opinion 1614. rrfl/?er;a Latreille, 1828 (Crustacea, Decapoda): conserved .... 228 
Opinion 1615. trapeziidae Miers, 1886 (Crustacea, Decapoda) and trapeziidae 

Lamy, 1920 (Mollusca, Bivalvia); homonymy removed 229 

Opinion 1616. Ptochus Schonherr, 1826 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Ptochus porcellus 

Boheman in Schonherr, 1834 confirmed as the type species 231 

Opinion 1617. Rosema Walker, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): given precedence over 

Ze/ZcaHubner, [1825] and y?/;ogfl//aHubner,[ 1825] 233 

Opinion 1618. Protocalliphora Hough, 1899 (Insecta. Diptera) and its type species 

Musca azurea Fallen, 1817: usage conserved by the designation of a replacement 

lectotype 235 

Opinion 1619. Ewibia jaceana Hering, 1935 (currently Urophora jaceana; Insecta, 

Diptera): specific name given precedence over fwr/^/fl coHj'Zfle Hering, 1933 . . . 237 
Opinion 1620. Monograptus exiguus (Graptolithina): accepted usage conserved by 

citation of Lapworth ( 1 876) as author 238 

Opinion 1621. Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes, Osteoglossiformes): 

Osteoglossum bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1 829 designated as the type species 239 



INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS 

The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Commission; other 
authors should comply with the relevant sections. Recent parts of the Bulletin should be 
consulted as examples. 

Title. This should be written in lower case letters and include the names to be conserved. A 
specific name should be cited in the original binomen, with the current name in parentheses. 

/lw?/7or 5 /Ji7we. Full postal address should be given. 

Abstract. This will be prepared by the Commission's Secretariat. 

Text. Typed in double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs setting out the details 
of the case and leading to a final paragraph of formal proposals. Text references should give dates 
and page numbers in parentheses, e.g. 'Daudin (1800, p. 39) described . . . 

References. These should be given for all authors cited. The title of periodicals should be in full 
and be underlined; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic figures, separated by a 
colon from page numbers. Book titles should be underlined and followed by the number of 
pages, the publisher and the place of publication. 

Submission oj application. Two copies should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, the Inter- 
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce the time that it takes to process 
the large number of applications received if the typescript could be accompanied by a disk with 
copy in ASCII text on IBM PC format 5.25 inch 360KB (preferable) or 1 .2MB, or 3.5 inch 1 .4MB 
floppy disk. Disks will be returned after copying. It would also be helpful if applications were 
accompanied by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references. 



CONTENTS 

Page 

Notices 173 

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature-Crustacea and Mollusca Offprints 1 74 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 174 

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology-Supplement 1 74 

Applications 

Thalassochernes Beier, 1940 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): proposed designation of 
Chelifer taierensis With, 1 907 as the type species. M. S. Harvey 1 76 

Anemia franciscana Kellogg, 1906 (Crustacea, Branchiopoda): proposed conservation 
of the specific name. D. Belk & S. T. Bowen 1 78 

Dalla Mabille, 1904 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation. S. R. Steinhauser, 
L.D.Miller,J. Y.Miller &C. A. Bridges 184 

Calliphora vicina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1 830 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation 
of the specific name. K. Rognes & R. E. Blackith 187 

Rivulus marmoratus Poey, 1 880 (Osteichthyes, Cyprinodontiformes): proposed conser- 
vation of the specific name. K. J. Lazara & M. L. Smith 191 

Coccyzus euleri Cabanis, 1873 (Aves, Cuculiformes): proposed conservation of the 
specific name. E. O. Willis &Y. Oniki 195 

Phororhacos Ameghino, 1889 (Aves, Gruiformes): proposed conservation. L. M. 
Chiappe&M. F. Soria 198 

Comments 

On the proposed conservation of Umax fibratus Martyn, 1 784 and Nerita hebraea 

Martyn, 1786 (currently Placostylus fibratus and Natica hebraea; Mollusca. 

Gastropoda). R. T. Abbott; P. Bouchet; A. Gentry; R. Giannuzzi-Savelli .... 202 
On the proposed precedence of polygyridae Pilsbry, 1 894 over mesodontidae Tryon, 

1866 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). G. Rosenberg & K. C. Emberton 204 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Texigryphaea pitcheri (Morton, 

1834) (Mollusca, Bivalvia). R. W. Scott 205 

On the proposed conservation of Proptera Rafinesque, 1819 (Mollusca, Bivalvia). 

A. H. Clarke; A. E.Bogan, J.D.Williams &S.L.H. Fuller 205 

On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Aphrodita imbricata Linnaeus, 

1767 (currently Harmothoe imbricata) and Aphrodita minuta Fabricius, 1780 

(currently Pholoe minuta) (Annelida, Polychaeta). M. E. Petersen; S. Chambers & 

D. Heppell 207 

On the proposed precedence of Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901 (Arachnida, Araneae) over 

Rhechostica Simon, 1892. H. W. Levi & O. Kraus 211 

On the proposed conservation of Ixodes angustus Neumann, 1899 and /. woodi 

Bishopp, 1911 (Arachnida, Acari) by replacement of the holotype of/, angustus. 

G. B.White 211 

On the conservation of the spelling of the specific name of Macrocheles robustulus 

(Beriese, 1 904) (Arachnida, Acarina). R. C. Axtell et al 212 

On the proposed conservation of Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 (Crustacea, 

Isopoda). J. Forest 212 

On the proposed designation of Lysianax cubensis Stebbing, 1 897 as the type species of 

Shoemakerella Pirlot, 1936 (Crustacea, Amphipoda). R. C. Brusca; M. H. Thurston 213 
On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Curculio viridicollis Fabricius, 

1 792 (currently Phyllobius viridicollis; Insecta, Coleoptera). M. A. Alonso-Zarazaga; 

P.K.Tubbs 213 

On the proposed precedence of Culicoides puncticollis (Becker, 1903) over 

C. algecirensis (Strobl, 1900) (Insecta, Diptera). G. B. White 214 

On the proposed suppression of Culex peus Speiser, 1904 to conserve C. stigmatosoma 

Dyar, 1907 and C. thriambus Dyar, 1921 (Insecta, Diptera). G. B. White; D. 

Strickman 215 

On the proposed confirmation of Griffithides longiceps Portlock, 1843 as the type 

species of Griffithides Portlock, 1843 (Trilobita). Sir J. Stubblefield; H. B. 

Whittington 216 

Continued on Inside Back Cover 



Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press. Dorchester, Dorset 



Volume 47, Part 4, 20 December 1990 pp. 241-311 ISSN IIO(p^|[|ff|S|{ MUSEI 

(NATURAL HISTORY) 




The 

Bulletin 

of 

Zoological 
Nomenclature 



31 DEC 
PURCHASED 
IBINQ OBRARY 



jlCZU^ jjhe Official Periodical 
of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 




4 



THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a 
charity (no. 21 1944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 1990 is £65 or 
$125, postage included; the rates for 1991 will be £70 or $135. All manuscripts, letters 
and orders should be sent to: 
The Executive Secretary, 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 
c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, 

London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 071-938 9387) 



INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



Officers 
President 
Vice-President 
Secretary-General 
Executive Secretary 



Prof Dr O. Kraus {Fed. Rep. Germany) 
Dr H. G. Cogger {Australia) 
Dr I. W. B. Nye {United Kingdom) 
Dr P. K. Tubbs {United Kingdom) 



Members 

Dr F. M. Bayer {U.S.A.; Corallia) 
Prof W. J. Bock {U.S.A.; Ornithology) 
Dr L. R. M. Cocks {U.K.; Brachiopoda) 
Dr H. G. Cogger {Australia; Herpetology) 
Prof J. O. Corliss {U.S.A.; Protista) 
Prof C. Dupuis {France; Heteroptera) 
ProfDrG. Hahn 

{Fed. Rep. Germany; Trilobita) 
Prof Dr O. Halvorsen 

{Norway; Parasitology) 
Mr D. Heppell {U.K.; Mollusca) 
Dr L. B. Holthuis 

{The Netherlands; Crustacea) 
Dr Z. Kabata {Canada; Copepoda) 
ProfDrG. Kraus 

{Fed. Rep. Germany; Arachnology) 
Dr P. T. Lehtinen {Finland; Arachnology) 
Dr E. Macpherson {Spain; Crustacea) 



Dr V. Mahnert 

{Switzerland; Ichthyology) 
Prof U. R. Martins de Souza 

{Brazil; Cole opt era) 
Prof A. Minelli {Italy; Myriapoda) 
Dr M. Mroczkowski {Poland; Coleoptera) 
Dr C. Nielsen {Denmark; Bryozoa) 
Dr I. W. B. Nye {U.K.; Lepidoptera) 
Dr W. D. L. Ride {Australia; Mammalia) 
Prof J. M. Savage {U.S.A.; Herpetology) 
Prof Dr R. Schuster {Austria; Acari) 
Dr Y. I. Starobogatov 

{U.S.S.R.; Mollusca) 
Dr F. C. Thompson {U.S.A.; Diptera) 
Dr V. A. Trjapitzin 

{U.S.S.R.; Hymenoptera) 
Dr Shun-Ichi Ueno {Japan; Entomology) 
Prof A. Willink 

{Argentina; Hymenoptera) 



Secretariat 

Dr P. K. Tubbs {Executive Secretary and Editor) 

Mr J. D. D. Smith, B.Sc, B.A. {Scientific Administrator) 

Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. {Zoologist) 

Miss D. Allan, B.Sc. {Zoologist) 



Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 

Prof H. B. Whittington, F.R.S. {Chairman) 

Dr M. K. Howarth {Secretary and Managing Director) 

® International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1990 



31 OEC 1990 

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 

Volume 47, part 4 (pp. 241-311) 20 December 1990 

Notices 

(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised to vote on apphcations 
pubhshed in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the pubHcation, 
but this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Any 
zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to send his 
contribution to the Executive Secretary of the Commission as quickly as possible. 

(b) Invitation to contribute general articles. At present the Bulletin comprises mainly 
applications concerning names of particular animals or groups of animals, resulting 
comments and the Commission's eventual rulings (Opinions). Proposed amendments 
to the Code are also published for discussion. 

Articles or notes of a more general nature are actively welcomed provided that they 
raise nomenclatural issues, although they may well deal with taxonomic matters for 
illustrative purposes. It should be the aim of such contributions to interest an audience 
wider than some small group of speciaHsts. 

(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received 
since going to press for volume 47, part 3 (pubhshed on 28 September 1990). Under 
Article 80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the 
Commission is published. 

(1) Carabus mollis Marsham, 1 802 (currently Calathus mollis; Insecta, Coleoptera): 
proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2782). B. Aukema & M.L. 
Luff. 

(2) Cryptophagus Herbst, 1 792, Dorcatoma Herbst, 1 792, Rhizophagus Herbst, 1 793 
and Colon Herbst, 1797 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation as the 
correct spellings, and proposed conservation of Lyctus bipustulatus Fabricius, 
1792 as the type species of Rhizophagus. (Case 2783). H. Silfverberg. 

(3) Procellaria gigantea Gmelin, 1789 (currently Macronectes giganteus; Aves, 
Procellariiformes): proposed conservation of usage of the specific name by 
designation of a neotype. (Case 2784). J.-F. Voison & 16 others. 

(4) Palaeopropithecus ingens Grandidier, 1899 (Mammalia, Primates): proposed 
conservation of both generic and specific names. (Case 2785). I. Tattersall & E.L. 
Simons. 

(5) TACHiNiDAE Fleming, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera) and tachinidae 
Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed removal of homonymy, 
and TACHYPORiDAE MacLcay, 1825: proposed precedence over tachinidae 
Fleming, 1821. (Case 2786). A.F. Newton Jr., M.K. Thayer & C.W. Sabrosky. 

(6) Styloptcuma Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 (Crustacea, Cumacea): proposed con- 
servation with designation of S. antipai Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 as the type 
species. (Case 2787). L.B. Holthuis. 



242 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



(7) Mopsea Lamouroux, 1816 (Cnidaria, Octocorallia): proposed designation of 
his encrinula Lamarck, 1815 as the type species. (Case 2788). P. Alderslade. 

(8) Amicytheridea Bate, 1975 (Crustacea, Ostracoda): proposed designation of 
A. triangulata Bate, 1975 as the type species. (Case 2789). S.C. Khosla, S.R. 
Jakhar & M.H. Mohammed. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Crustacea and MoUusca 
Offprints 

As an experiment to assess the demand, the International Trust for Zoological 
Nomenclature is introducing a subscription for individual zoologists wishing to receive 
offprints of all cases in particular disciplines. For an annual payment of £15 or $25 
subscribers will receive copies of all Applications, Comments and Opinions relating to 
either the Crustacea or Mollusca as soon as they are published in the Bulletin of 
Zoological Nomenclature. This service will start with the present volume, but offprints 
are available back to 1980. 

Orders for offprints relating to either the Crustacea or the Mollusca should be sent to 
I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, 
U.K., with payment at the rate of £15 or $25 for each year requested. 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 

The Third Edition (published 1985) supersedes all earlier versions and incorporates 
many changes. 

Copies may be ordered from The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 
c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Price £19 
or $35 (postage included) or from the American Association for Zoological Nomen- 
clature, c/o NHB Stop 163, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 
20560 U.S.A. Price $35 ($32 to members of A.A.Z.N.). Payment should accompany 
orders. 



Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in 
Zoology — Supplement 

The Ojficial Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology was published in 1 987. 
This book gives details of all the names and works on which the Commission has ruled 
since it was set up in 1895 up to 1985. There are about 9,900 entries. 

In the three years 1986-88, 544 names and three works have been added to the 
Official Lists and Official Indexes. A supplement has been prepared giving these 
additional entries, together with some amendments to entries in the 1987 volume. This 
supplement was circulated with Vol. 46, Part 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomencla- 
ture. Copies can be obtained without charge from either of the following addresses, 
from which the Official Lists and Indexes can be ordered at the price shown (postage 
included). 

Payment should accompany orders. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



243 



The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History 
Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Price £60 or $110 
or 

The American Association for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o NHB Stop 163, National 
Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Price $110 ($100 to 
members of A.A.Z.N.). 



244 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 



Financial Report for 1989 

The Trust made a small operating loss of £353 during the year 1989, which is 0.6% of 
the total income of £60,930 received during that year. It demonstrates the extent to 
which the Trust relies on the continuation of its generous grants and donations. 

Approximately half the Trust's income came from sales of publications. Foremost 
amongst these were the four parts of the 1989 volume of the Bulletin of Zoological 
Nomenclature, which yielded an income of £20,400. Sales of the Official Lists and 
Indexes amounted to £5,907 in 1989, bringing the total sales since publication in June 
1987 to £24,031 by the end of 1989; the profit on that pubHcation is now £8,084, after 
the printing costs have been deducted. Sales of the International Code of Zoological 
Nomenclature recovered to £2,614 in 1989, after the abnormally low figure of less than 
half that amount in 1988, and this reflects the steps taken by the Trust to sell the Code 
direct rather than through an agent. 

The remaining half of the Trust's income was from grants, donations and interest. 
Grants of £1,000 from the Royal Society and £2,000 each from the U.K. Agricultural 
and Food Research Council, the Medical Research Council, the Natural Environment 
Research Council and the Science and Engineering Research Council were received 
with thanks. The Trust also wishes to express its thanks to the donors Hsted at the end of 
this report who supported its work during the year. Income from deeds of covenant 
amounted to £2 1 3, and bank and investment interest came to £ 1 0,2 1 3 . Finally royalties 
from sales of the Code translated into other languages yielded £694. All the sources of 
income showed an increase over the amounts received in 1988, except for the Official 
Lists and Indexes, which decreased from the high level of sales during the first 18 
months after publication. 

The expenses of the Trust in 1989 amounted to £61,238. The largest amount was for 
the salaries and national insurance (£48,981) and office expenses (£2,780) of the Secre- 
tariat of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Printing and 
distribution of the Bulletin amounted to £8,982. Minor expenses of £290 for 
depreciation of office equipment and £250 for the audit fee brought the total expenses 
up to £61 ,283. The Commission was again housed in the Natural History Museum and 
we thank the Trustees and Director for their continuing support. 

M.K. HOWARTH 
Secretary and Managing Director 
5 June 1990 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



245 



Donations received included the following: 
Academia Sinica, Taiwan, £118 



Academy of Science, U.S.S.R., £507 

American Association for Zoological Nomenclature, £5,825 
Australian Museums, £142 • • . . -. 

British Ecological Society, £500 

DrD.G.Broadley, Zimbabwe, £100 . , \ 

Freshwater Biological Association, £5 
Dr K. Hulsemann, £30 ■ - ■ 

Instituto de Ciencias del Mar, Barcelona, £500 
ProfDrO. Kraus,£20 

Royal Danish Academy of Sciences, £101 ^ 

Swiss Academy of Science, £1,990 • ' ■ , . 

Unione Zoologica Italiana, £212 , 



INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 
INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 

31 DECEMBER 1989 



Total £10,050 



Income 



SALE OF PUBLICATIONS 

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 
Official Lists and Indexes 



21,396 
2,641 
5,907 



29,944 



GRANTS 

DONATIONS AND COVENANTS 
ROYALTIES 

BANK AND INVESTMENT INTEREST 



9,000 
11,079 



694 
10,213 



30,986 



60,930 



Expenditure 



SALARIES AND FEES 
OFFICE EXPENSES 
AUDIT FEE 

PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF 



48,981 
2,780 
250 



PUBLICATIONS 
DEPRECIATION OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT 



8,982 
290 



61,283 



Deficit for the year 



£353 



246 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

General Session of the Commission, University of Maryland, 4 July 1990 

Present: Prof Dr O. Kraus (President) in the Chair: Commissioners Bock, Cogger, 
Corliss, Heppell, Lehtinen, Minelli, Ride, Savage, Schuster and Thompson. Dr Tubbs 
(Executive Secretary), Mrs Gentry and Mr Smith from the Secretariat also present. The 
President welcomed Dr Bock and Prof Minelli as new members of the Commission 
attending their first meeting. 

1 . Apologies for absence were received from Commissioners Bayer, Cocks, Dupuis, 
Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 
Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Ueno and Willink. 

2. The minutes of the previous General Session of the Commission (Canberra, 
October 1988) as pubHshed in BZN 46: 7-12 were accepted and signed. The report of 
the Section of Zoological Nomenclature (Canberra, October 1988) as published in 
BZN 46: 14-18 was discussed. 

3. Specialist Nomenclature Committees 

A number of Specialist Nomenclature Committees established by relevant 
Congresses now existed and were available to assist the Commission by advising on 
applications submitted to the Commission and the impact of such applications on 
taxonomy. However, there were some areas where there was a fear that the existence of 
such a committee would impinge on the freedom of taxonomists. It was stressed that 
Nomenclature Committees would need to be recognized as being committees of the 
Commission. If their role was to be widened to areas such as compiling and considering 
registers of names, it was important to spell out clearly the role of the committees. In 
this context, Prof Bock agreed to draw up draft Terms of Reference for Nomenclature 
Committees based on his experience of the Standing Committee on Ornithological 
Nomenclature (SCON) of the International Ornithological Congress. The importance 
of proceeding with the establishment of Specialist Nomenclature Committees in 
appropriate areas that did not yet have them was agreed. 

4. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

Dr Tubbs reported that in 1989 there were 327 subscribers to the Bulletin from 45 
countries. As an experiment to assess the demand, the International Trust for Zoologi- 
cal Nomenclature was introducing a subscription for individual zoologists wishing to 
receive offprints of all cases in particular areas. Initially this would cover the Crustacea 
and the Mollusca. 

5. Ojficial Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology 

In the three years since publication 481 copies of this book had been sold and a 
further 5 1 copies had been distributed free to Commissioners, reviewers, etc. A supple- 
ment listing all the additional entries in the five years since compilation of the book 
would be issued early in 1991. It was suggested that there would be advantage in 
providing the updated book for sale on disk in addition to book form. It was agreed 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



247 



that production on disk would be explored with Biosis for report to the next meeting at 
Amsterdam. . , - 

6. Financial Position ■ ■ .< - . , 

Dr Tubbs said that the Trust's expenditure in 1990 would be about matched by 
income. Expenditure would be lower than anticipated due to a temporary saving in 
salary arising from the resignation of a member of the Secretariat and to economies in 
printing costs by providing copy on disk. Income was higher than expected mainly due 
to an increased contribution from the American Association for Zoological Nomencla- 
ture and donations from a number of countries that had not recently provided support, 
particularly Australia, Germany, South Africa, Spain and Japan. The Commission 
expressed warm appreciation to those institutions and individuals that had made con- 
tributions enabling the Commission's work to continue and progress, and also to those 
whose efforts had led to such contributions being made. 

It had recently been suggested that a European Association for Zoological 
Nomenclature should be established with the objective of furthering the interests of the 
Commission's work and of co-ordinating financial support for the Trust. Fifteen 
European countries had Commissioners or Trustees who would be well placed to co- 
ordinate activities within their own countries. Dr Macpherson had offered to provide 
overall co-ordination from Spain. Commissioners welcomed the proposition and 
RESOLVED to work towards the establishment of such an Association. It was 
suggested that a first step forward would be for Dr Macpherson to write to representa- 
tives in each European country requesting a list of institutions and individuals who 
might be approached for support. 

It was known that some countries were unable to contribute research council or 
other government support to an organisation based abroad, such as the Trust. How- 
ever, it might be possible for such countries to make additional contibutions to I.U.B.S. 
earmarked for the Trust. Such contributions from government sources would be 
additional to funds generated by the European Association for Zoological Nomencla- 
ture, or otherwise given. Dr Ride undertook to place this proposition before the next 
I.U.B.S. Officers Meeting. 

7. Commission Procedures 

Commissioners were aware that there was a widespread belief that the procedures 
followed by the Commission were too slow and cumbersome and that there was a large 
backlog of cases awaiting publication or decision. It was important to correct this 
conception and to ensure that cases could be dealt with expeditiously. The Secretary 
was asked to provide details so that Commissioners could respond to criticisms made 
to them. It was furthermore RESOLVED that the Secretariat would prepare an article 
explaining procedures and how these were implemented in practice. This article could 
be published in the Bulletin and also perhaps in Systematic Zoology. 

8. Election of Commissioners at the next I. U.B.S. Assembly 

There would be five vacancies on the Commission to be filled at the meeting of 
I.U.B.S. to be held at Amsterdam in September 1991; one of these vacancies already 
existed, but it was agreed not to fill it by the casual vacancy procedure. Calls for 



248 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



nominations had been widely published and nominations had been received from 
several countries. 

9. Proposed Suppression for Nomenclatural Purposes of three Herpetological Works 
An application for the suppression of three herpetological works by R.W. Wells and 

C.R. Wellington had been pubhshed in the Bulletin (June 1987) and a number of 
comments had been received and published. Commissioners agreed that, while the 
taxonomic content of works lay outside its area of involvement, the Commission did 
have a responsibility to prevent loss of universality in the use of names and it was on this 
issue that action might be appropriate. Before a vote was taken on the application it 
would be desirable to receive from the Nomenclature Committee of the International 
Herpetological Congress a statement, quantified as far as possible, on the loss of 
universality in the use of names arising from these publications. It was agreed that the 
Committee should be asked to supply such a statement. 

It was pointed out that this case highlighted the difficulties that could arise from the 
publication of large numbers of destabilising names or nomenclatural acts, and that 
this problem had been exacerbated by modern publishing techniques. A long-term 
solution was desirable, and it was suggested that one way would be to compile a list of 
sources, both journals and book publishers, in which names would have to be 
published or be registered in order to be accepted as available. 

10. Register of Names 

(a) Generic Names 

Dr Ride and Dr Tubbs reported on continuing discussions between I.U.B.S., the 
Commission Secretariat and Biosis on possible liaison in preparing registers of names. 
Commissioners recognized the value of such lists and welcomed the proposed collabor- 
ation with Biosis. A register of generic names could be based on Neave's Nomenclator 
Zoologicus and Zoological Record. It would be necessary to provide for breakdown 
into systematic groups, enabhng specialists to identify errors. After appropriate 
periods for consultation and amendments it could be ruled that only the names on the 
lists should be accepted as available, with authors and dates as given therein. Other 
names pubhshed before the compilation date of the register would be deemed unavail- 
able. It was important that the data bases should be prepared so that they could be 
searched in a variety of ways, using fields such as name, author, date, place of publi- 
cation and systematic group, and that matters such as nomina WM^/a, junior homonyms, 
type species and actions by the Commission (such as placement on the Official Lists) 
could be taken into account. A committee (the President, Commissioners Cogger, Ride 
and Thompson and the Executive Secretary) was set up to give guidance on such lists, 
and to respond to difficulties that would doubtless arise. It was RESOLVED to enter 
into negotiations with Biosis with a view to developing a data base of generic names as a 
Hst of available names. A paper would be prepared for discussion by the Commission 
and the Section of Zoological Nomenclature at Amsterdam putting forward a formal 
proposition along these lines. 

(b) Family-Group Names 

Dr Bock described the list of about 1250 available family-group names of living birds 
prepared under his Chairmanship by the Standing Committee on Ornithological 
Nomenclature. After a number of remaining problems had been resolved it might be 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



249 



possible for the Commission to adopt such a Ust as a base-Hne so that other previously 
existing names were deemed not to exist as available names. Workers in other areas 
could be encouraged to prepare lists of family-group names in their own areas. With 
this in mind Dr Bock agreed to prepare a note setting out the procedures he had 
developed for drawing up such a list. 

(c) Names of Higher Taxa - ■ ■ ■ ■ • 

Although taxa higher than family-group were outside the remit of the Commission it 
was thought desirable to try to introduce some degree of conformity in the use of such 
higher taxa. It was suggested that a list, perhaps based on Synopsis and Classification of 
Living Organisms (McGraw-Hill, 1982) which covered extant taxa, should be drawn up 
for circulation to Commissioners for comment. Commissioners Heppell, Savage and 
the Executive Secretary would compile this for consideration at the next Commission 
meeting. : '■ 

(d) Specific Names 

It was suggested that the Commission could receive lists of available species-group 
names in discrete groups of animals, and that, after appropriate consideration by 
specialists in the groups concerned, such names could be ruled to be the only ones 
available. It was agreed that this would be discussed by the Commission and the 
Section of Zoological Nomenclature in Amsterdam. ■ „ 

11. New Edition of the Code 

At the last Commission meeting at Canberra an Editorial Committee (Chairman: 
Commissioner Thompson) had been set up to work towards a new edition of the Code. 
Dr Thompson made a report and explained that there would be an open meeting of the 
Commission on 5th July to consider possible amendments to the Code. Additionally, 
an ICSEB Round Table Discussion on 6th July would have a more general discussion 
on issues of biological nomenclature involving the Botanical, Zoological and other 
Codes. 

There was general agreement that a new edition should not follow the numbering of 
Articles in the 3rd Edition since a number of closely related issues were dispersed 
throughout the Code and needed to be brought together. 

A small group of Commissioners met after the formal conclusion of the Commission 
meeting to identify issues for further consideration at the Commission's Open Meeting 
on 5th July. ; . . i 

12. Conclusion 

In closing the meeting, the President expressed the view that the meeting had made 
significant progress and that it was important to emphasise to the zoological 
community the positive approach adopted by the Commission. He reminded Commis- 
sioners that the centenary of the Commission's estabhshment would occur in 1995 and 
that recognition of this, perhaps in the form of a Centenary History, would be 
appropriate. 



250 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

Open Meeting of the Commission, University of Maryland, 5 July 1990 

Present: Prof Dr O. Kraus (President) in the Chair: Commissioners Bock, Cogger, 
Corliss, Heppell, Lehtinen, Ride, Savage, Schuster and Thompson. Commission Secre- 
tariat: Dr Tubbs (Executive Secretary), Mrs Gentry and Mr Smith. Dr R. Bieler, Dr D. 
Goujet, Miss C. Hine, Dr J.H. Kirkbride, Dr M. Kraus, Miss J. Mcintosh, Dr P. 
Mikkelsen, Dr J. Reveal, Dr G. Rosenberg, Professor J.R.P. Ross and Dr C.W. 
Sabrosky. 

1 . The President opened the meeting by welcoming all present. He explained that the 
aim of the meeting was to explain the Commission's policy and the way in which it 
operated, and to seek the views of zoologists present. The Commission was now work- 
ing towards a fourth edition of the Code. A draft would be prepared for consideration 
by the Section of Zoological Nomenclature and for comment by zoologists, and an 
input from the user community at this stage would be of great value. 

2. The President summarised the dehberations of the Commission in session on 4 
July, referring particularly to (a) the intention to develop a register of names in use, 
starting with generic names, (b) discussions that had taken place on the value of a list of 
names of taxa at ranks higher than family-group, and (c) the continued use of publi- 
cation as a primary criterion of availability. These issues are spelled out in the Minutes 
of the General Session of the Commission. The President beheved that the Commission 
had achieved a measure of stability in zoological nomenclature, but he stressed that 
additional funding was essential to enable new activities to be implemented. 

3. Dr Reveal, speaking as Co-President of ICSEB IV, welcomed the Commission's 
acceptance of ICSEB as a forum for meetings with the zoological community, since it 
was more representative of working taxonomists than meetings of the General 
Assembly of lUBS. He recognised that, for constitutional reasons, the Commission 
operated through lUBS. 

4. Dr Tubbs outlined the role of the Commission's Secretariat based at the Natural 
History Museum, London. He described the procedure whereby applications received 
from zoologists were prepared for pubHcation in the Bulletin of Zoological 
Nomenclature, voted upon by the Commission and the outcome published in an 
Opinion. Additionally, the Secretariat fulfilled an important advisory function. 

5. The remainder of the meeting was devoted to a discussion on major policy issues 
at present under consideration for the next edition of the Code. At the President's 
invitation, Dr Ride (former President of the Commission and Chairman of the 
Editorial Committee for the 3rd Edition of the Code) guided the meeting. He explained 
that comments received on the present edition, and proposals that had been made for 
emendations, fell into six main areas requiring decisions on policy. These areas were 
Availability, Priority, Language, Homonymy, Orthography and Types. Each area was 
then considered in turn. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



251 



6. Availability --^ ■ ■■^r" r ■ w. y .-yy 

(a) Publication ( Article 8 ) Modern publishing techniques had exacerbated the diffi- 
culties that could arise when publication per se resulted in destabilising names or 
nomenclatural acts automatically entering zoological nomenclature. The scale of such 
work could now be so great that a review of policy was warranted. One possible 
solution would be to develop a system whereby names made available under the exist- 
ing criteria would then need to be registered in a single journal, as in bacterial 
nomenclature. Another solution could be to restrict publication of new names to a 
designated list of journals and book publishers with approved standards of refereeing 
and peer review; such works would have to be registered for nomenclatural purposes. 
There was overwhelming support for the need to extend the present criteria for avail- 
abihty by some form of registration. The Commission was asked to explore options. A 
majority favoured registration of works in preference to a register of new names. The 
meeting also considered whether it would be desirable to require, henceforth, all formal 
descriptions purporting to define nominal taxa to be in one of the languages of the 
Code, such languages to be decided. The proposal was supported. 

(b) Designation of Types and Descriptions ( Article 13 ) There was strong support for 
a requirement that the establishment of a species-group name must in future require the 
explicit designation of type specimen(s). Such holotypes or syntypes should be labelled 
and deposited in a publicly accessible collection, as is now the case for neotypes, unless 
there were circumstances when this requirement could not be met, e.g. for specimens 
that for physical or legal reasons could not be preserved. A majority also favoured 
retention of the requirement that a new family-group name should be accompanied by 
a description of the taxon to which it applied rather than be made available merely by 
being a new name based upon the name of an included genus. 

7. Priority ( Article 23b ) 

(a) Species-Group Names This Article placed on a worker wishing to secure current 
general usage of a junior name the onus to apply to the Commission for its conservation 
despite the fact that the introduction of forgotten and destabilizing names is contrary to 
the Principle of Priority as stated in the Code. It would be advantageous to require a 
worker wishing to introduce a forgotten senior synonym replacing a junior synonym in 
current use to justify that action. The meeting accepted unanimously that the require- 
ment to apply to the Commission for the conservation of a junior synonym in use 
should be removed from Article 23 and that the different components relevant to the 
conservation of such names currently in Articles 23, 79 and 80 be brought together in 
the Code. 

(b) Family-Group Names The application of the Principle of Priority to family- 
group names was proving to be destabilizing and laborious. It raised problems that 
could best be dealt with by the development of registers of family-group names that 
would be conserved against earlier names. It was agreed that the Commission should 
develop this option. 

'■ ■ ^ ■ " ', 

8. Language ( Article 11 ) 

(a) Family-Group Names The Code's insistence on classical grammar created 
problems in the formation of the stem of family-group names. The meeting agreed 
unanimously that, while the stem of family-group names should be based on classical 



252 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



grammar, the Code should permit departure when estabhshed usage would be upset by 
emendation. There was no support for disturbing current usage either by reverting to 
original orthography or by applying strict rules of classical grammar. It was agreed that 
the Code should contain its own rules of orthography that would make grammatical 
arguments redundant. 

(b) Agreement of Gender The meeting explored the concept of abandoning the 
requirements of Latin grammar in the agreement of an adjectival specific name with the 
gender of the genus with which it was combined. This could be achieved by considering 
either that all genera were of one gender, or that the original spelling of the specific 
name would be preserved on recombination. The meeting was evenly divided between 
those favouring and those against abandoning agreement in gender. If gender agree- 
ment was abandoned, a decision would have to be made whether adjectival specific 
names would be spelled (a) as in most common current usage, (b) as originally 
pubUshed, or (c) as converted to a single gender form. The meeting did not have a 
consensus view on the alternatives. 

9. Homonymy ( Article 55 ) In many instances homonymy in family-group names 
is caused by the similarity (but not identity) of the names of their type genera. It had 
been suggested that such homonymy could be permitted when confusion was unlikely 
to be caused. However, the view of the meeting was strongly that increased use of data 
bases made it more important than hitherto to avoid homonymy in family-group 
names, even when occurring in widely different animal groups. 

10. Orthography 

(a) Use of the Termination -i or -ii (and Gender Equivalents) in Specific Names 
(Article 31a) The Code requires use of the original termination of specific names 
formed as nouns in the genitive case from personal names unless the name was other- 
wise incorrectly formed; this requirement to maintain original orthography was widely 
held to be unnecessarily pedantic. There was no support in the meeting for maintaining 
the requirement as it stood; a few members would prefer to require the use of a single 
termination for all names formed from those of male persons (e.g. smithi, salvadorii), 
but a considerable majority favoured treating -/ and -ii as being permissible alternatives 
with users having freedom of choice between them. 

(b) Spellings Selected by the First Reviser (Article 24) The Principle of the First 
Reviser sometimes generated problems, as, for example, when a first reviser action had 
been overlooked. One possibility would be to apply page or line priority to the use of 
simultaneously published names, but such an option received no support from mem- 
bers who preferred to maintain the Code as it stood. It was suggested that it might be 
advantageous for this Article to be amplified so that, when an author of simultaneously 
pubHshed names later considered synonyms subsequently used only one of those 
names, that author would be accepted as first reviser, unless another author had 
already made a choice between them and had thereby become the first reviser. 

1 1 . Types 

(a) Type Specimens The meeting reiterated the view (para. 6b above) that type 
specimens must be designated and, as the property of science, be publicly accessible. 

(b) Invalidity of Type Genera ( Articles 39, 40 ) At present when the name of a type 
genus is found to be invalid as a junior homonym the family-group name must be 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



253 



replaced by the next oldest synonym. There was unanimous agreement that the taxo- 
nomic usage should be maintained by requiring it to be replaced by the name based on 
the vahd name of the type genus. It was also agreed unanimously that continuity of a 
family-group name in general usage should be maintained as in the current Code, even 
if based on a type genus itself rejected as a junior synonym. 

(c) Misidentification of Type Genera and Species ( Articles 41 ,65 , 70) Articles41 and 
65 of the Code required that, if stability and continuity in the meaning of a family- 
group name were threatened by the discovery that its type genus was based on a 
misidentified type species, or by the discovery of an overlooked type fixation, the case 
was to be referred to the Commission for a ruling. Similarly, Article 70 requires that 
cases of misidentified type species of genera must be referred to the Commission. The 
need to involve the Commission in all such cases was questioned. If the current 
provision was to be replaced by an automatic provision, options would be to accept 
the nominal type genus or species as cited, even though considered to be misidentified, 
or to adopt as type the nominal taxon considered to have been actually involved. No 
consensus was reached and the Commission was asked to give the matter further 
consideration. 

(d) Action by the Commission to Set Aside Type Specimens to Clarify Nomina Diibia 
( Recommendation 75 E) The present position was that the Commission was required to 
use its plenary powers to suppress the type status of an existing type specimen and to 
designate a neotype when this was needed to clarify a nomen dubium. It was agreed that 
there could be advantage if the Commission's involvement in such cases did not need 
recourse to the plenary powers. 

12. Restructuring the Code 

The 3rd Edition of the Code had maintained the arrangement of earlier editions. It 
was agreed that, in the next edition of the Code, there was a need to bring together 
subjects that in the present edition were widely separated, for example in the case of 
protecting names in use against unused senior synonyms Articles 23b, 79c and 80c 
could be unified (see 7a above). 

13. Thanks to Participants 

In closing the meeting the President expressed his thanks to Dr Ride who had guided 
the discussion on major policy issues relating to the next edition of the Code and to all 
those present who had helped in the development of these policies. He said that the 
views of the meeting were of great help to the Commission and would be considered 
further in the process of developing a 4th Edition of the Code. 



254 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



Case 2768 

Lepidomenia Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883 (Mollusca, Solenogastres): 
proposed designation of Lepidomenia hystrix Marion & Kowalevsky in 
Fischer, 1885 as the type species 

David Heppell 

Department of Natural History, National Museums of Scotland, Edinburgh 
EHl IJF, U.K. 

Abstract. The purpose of this appHcation is to establish the correct authorship and 
dates for the solenogaster names Lepidomenia and L. hystrix, and to designate 
L. hystrix as the type species of the genus in accordance with universal understanding 
and usage. 



1 . Both the generic and specific names of the binomen Lepidomenia hystrix were 
proposed in ways which have continued to cause confusion as to the correct attribution 
of date and authorship. Pilsbry (1898, p. 310) commented on 'the decidedly confused 
literature' and summarized the problem as follows: 'The name Lepidomenia was first 
used by Kowalevski in 1 88 1 [sic] or 1 883 in connection with Neomenia coralliophila and 
a Marseilles form supposed to be specifically the same as coralliophila, but apparently 
identical with what was subsequently described as L. hystrix. Simroth has chosen to 
restrict Lepidomenia to the later described species, although the record would incline 
one to choose A'^. coralliophila as the type.' No doubt because Kowalevsky 's introduc- 
tion of Lepidomenia was made in a literature-recording journal (1883) and not in the 
primary zoological Hterature, Pilsbry attributed the name to Kowalevsky & Marion, 
1887. This attribution is still sometimes found in modern works (e.g. Jones & Baxter, 
1987, p. 28). The spelling 'Kowalevsky' is adopted here, as that is the transHteration 
used by the author himself in non-Russian works, but he is also commonly cited as 
Kovalevsky, Kowalevski or Kowalewsky. 

2. In 1872 Kowalevsky discovered two new species of Solenogastres associated with 
corals at La Calle, Algeria, which he assigned to the genus Neomenia Tullberg, 1875. 
The first of these, A'', gorgonophila, appeared in an abstract (Kowalevsky in Brandt, 
1880, p. 190), which was followed by a full description in vol. 37 of Izvestiya 
Imperatorskago Obshchestva Lyubitelei Estestvoznaniya... (Kowalevsky, 1881a). The 
single specimen of the second species was described as N. corallophila (Kowalevsky, 
1881b). The description of this species was intended for pubhcation in an appendix to 
vol. 37 (1881) of Izvestiya, and this was announced in vol. 41 (part 1, back cover, also 
pubUshed in 1881). The paper was, however, never published in that form and it is 
omitted from the index to Izvestiya publications, 1863 to 1894 (Ivanovskii, 1894). 
Kowalevsky' s work was, nevertheless, included in literature-recording publications 
(Zoologischer Anzeiger (1882, p. 422), Zoologischer Jahresbericht (1883, pp. 19, 28-29) 
and Zoological Record (1883, vol. 19, Mollusca, p. 8)) which noted it among the 
publications for 1882 as being published in 1881 in volume 43 of the Izvestiya (or a 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



255 



vernacular equivalent of the title of that periodical). Soulsby and Townsend's 
Catalogue of the books... in the British Museum {Natural History) {Supplement) (1933, 
p. 585) recorded that only 'author's copies' of the work were in existence. It was listed 
without comment as a separate publication by Kowalevsky & Marion (1887, p. 7, 
footnote) and in a bibliography of Kowalevsky's papers appended to his biography 
(DogeF, 1945, p. 150). A copy of Kowalevsky's work in the library of the Natural 
History Museum, London, shows no evidence that it is merely an unpublished proof; 
according to the plates it is a preprint of a paper intended for vol. 43 of the Izvestiya. 
Kowalevsky's paper was presumably withdrawn from publication in the Izvestiya at 
the last minute, and the completed text and plates issued as separates only (the entry in 
the Zoologischer Jahresbericht {ISS3, p. 19, no. 67) acknowledges 'Referat nach giitiger 
briefl. Mittheilung des Herrn Verfassers'). In the Museum copy the specific name of the 
solenogaster is spelled corallophila throughout, and it is odd, therefore, that all three 
literature-recording journals cite the name as ' coralliophila\ 

3. In 1882 Kowalevsky and Marion collected what they believed was a second 
specimen of Neomenia corallophila, also associated with a coral, from the north coast of 
the island of Ratonneau, near Marseilles. An abstract of Kowalevsky's 1881(b) paper, 
published by Brock (1883), incorporated details of this second specimen, evidently 
supplied by Kowalevsky. The second specimen was in better condition than the first 
and its features resulted in the species being placed in a new genus, Lepidomenia 
(p. 29), the name referring to the characteristic scaly integument. This is the first valid 
introduction of the generic name and it is formally attributed to 'Kowalevsky in Brock' 
(Recommendation 51B of the Code). The single nominal species originally included 
was Neomenia corallophila (incorrectly spelled coralliophila; see para. 2 above) which, 
in this 1883 usage, was a composite of the Algerian and French specimens. 

4. As early as January 1883 Kowalevsky and Marion realised that the Marseilles 
specimen of Neomenia represented a species distinct from the Algerian corallophila. 
Marion ( 1883, p. 69) listed the Marseilles specimen as Lepidomenia hystrix. The specific 
name was a nomen nudum here, but Marion indicated that a full description would be 
given in the 'Recueil' of the museum. This must have been a provisional title for the new 
periodical, as the description was eventually pubHshed in the Annales (Kowalevsky & 
Marion, 1887, pp. 7-25), although a shortened version of the paper appeared the 
previous year (Marion & Kowalevsky, 1 886, pp. 757-759) from which the name would 
be available. However, the specific name validly dates from a year eadier: Fischer 
(1885, pp. 884—889) incorporated an article by Marion on the Aplacophora; this 
included a description of the genus Lepidomenia and a figure of part of the scaly, 
spinous integument of Lepidomenia hystrix. This illustration (drawn by Marion) is an 
indication sufficient to make the name hystrix available from 1 885 (Article 12b(7) of the 
Code), and the attribution of the name to Marion and Kowalevsky (p. 889) established 
the joint authorship. Authorship of the name would be formally cited as 'Marion & 
Kowalevsky in Fischer' (Recommendation 51B of the Code). The attribution of 
Lepidomenia to 'Marion, 1884' on the same page is presumably to a manuscript usage. 

5. Simroth (1893a) proposed the new generic names Nematomenia (p. 324; type 
species Dondersia fiavens Pruvot, 1890) and Echinomenia (p. 325; type species 
Neomenia corallophila Kowalevsky, 1881). He retained hystrix as the sole species in 
Lepidomenia (see also Simroth, 1893b, pp. 138, 233) and this has been interpreted 
(wrongly; see Article 69b of the Code) as fixing L. hystrix as the type species of the 



256 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



genus. Thiele (1913a, p. 38) synonymized Echinomenia with Nematomenia (see also 
Thiele, 1913b, p. 14). Since then, corallophila and hystrix have been placed consistently 
in Nematomenia and Lepidomenia respectively. 

6. Both species appear to be rare. Neomenia (currently Nematomenia) corallophila is 
known only from the type specimen. Lepidomenia hystrix is possibly known only from 
the type locaUty (Salvini-Plawen, 1969), although Salvini-Plawen (1986, p. 191) gives 
Llansa (Spain) as a doubtful additional locality. Specimens from north of the island of 
Riou, near Marseilles, described as L. hystrix by Swedmark (1956, p. 93) were subse- 
quently identified as a new species, L. swedmarki, by Salvini-Plawen (1985, p. 103). 
There is also some doubt about the identity of specimens recorded as L. hystrix from 
Strangford Loch, Northern Ireland, by Boaden (1966, p. 127) and from off the north 
coast of Brittany by Swedmark & Teissier (1967, p. 70). 

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to confirm the authorship of the generic name Lepidomenia as Kowalevsky in 
Brock (1883); 

(2) to confirm the authorship of the specific name hystrix (as published in the bino- 
men Lepidomenia hystrix) as Marion & Kowalevsky in Fischer (1885); 

(3) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the 
nominal genus Lepidomenia Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883, and to designate 
Lepidomenia hystrix Marion & Kowalevsky in Fischer, 1885, as the type species; 

(4) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Lepidomenia 
Kowalevsky in Brock, 1 883 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (3) 
above Lepidomenia hystrix Marion & Kowalevsky in Fischer, 1885; 

(5) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name hystrix 
Marion & Kowalevsky in Fischer, 1885, as pubhshed in the binomen 
Lepidomenia hystrix (specific name of the type species of Lepidomenia 
Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883). 

References 

Boaden, P.J.S. 1966. Interstitial fauna from Northern Ireland. Verdjfentlichungen des Instituts 

fiir Meeresforschung in Bremerhaven, Sonderband 2: 125—130. 
Brandt, A. 1880. Verhandlungen der zoologischen Section der VI. Versammlung russischer 

Naturforscher and Arzte. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 3: 186-191 . 
Brock, J. 1883. Mollusca. A. Anatomie und Entwicklungsgeschichte. Zoologischer 

Jahresbericht, 1882(3): 16-47. 
Dogel', V.A. 1945. A.O. Kovalevskii, 1840-190L 153 pp., 1 pi. Akademii Nauk SSR, Moscow. [In 

Russian.] 

Fischer, P. 1885. Manuel de conchyliologie et de paleontologie conchyliologique ou histoire natur- 

elle des mollusques vivants et fossiles, part 9, pp. 785-896. Savy, Paris. 
Ivanovskii, A. A. 1894. Publications of the Society from 15 October 1863 to 1 August 1894. 

Bibliographical index. Izvestiya Imperatorskago Obshchestva Lyubitelei Estestvoznaniya, 

Antropologii i Etnografii pri Imperatorskom Moskovskom Universitete, 89: 1-30 

(60 columns). [In Russian.] 
Jones, A.M. & Baxter, J.M. 1987. Molluscs: Caudofoveata, Solenogastres, Polyplacophora and 

Scaphopoda. Synopses of the British Fauna (N.S.), 37: 1-123. 
Kowalevsky, A.O. 1881a. Neomenia gorgonophila. Izvestiya Imperatorskago Obshchestva 

Lyubitelei Estestvoznaniya, Antropologii i Etnografii pri Imperatorskom Moskovskom 

Universitete, 37(1): 181-186. [In Russian.] 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



257 



Kowalevsky, A.O. 1881b. On Neomenia corallophila and Coeleplana metschnikowii. 5 pp., 2 pis. 
Moscow. [In Russian.] 

Kowalevsky, A.O. & Marion, A.F. 1887. Contributions a I'histoire des Solenogastres ou 

Aplacophores. Lepidomenia hystrix: nouveau genre de la famille des Neomeniees. Annales 

du Musee d'Histoire Naturelle de Marseille, 3(1): 7-25. 
Marion, A.F. 1883. Esquisse d'une topographic zoologique du golfe de Marseille. Annales du 

Musee d'Histoire Naturelle de Marseille, 1(1): 1-108. 
Marion, A.F. & Kowalevsky, A.O. 1886. Organisation du Lepidomenia hystrix, nouveau type de 

Solenogastre. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Seances de I' Academic des Sciences. 

Paris, 103(17): 757-759. 
Pilsbry, H.A. 1898. Order Aplacophora von Ihering. Manual of Conchology, vol. 17, part 68, pp. 

281-310. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. 
Salvini-Plawen, L. von. 1969. Lepidomenia hystrix Marion & Kowalevsky, 1886. Schede 

Malacologiche del Mediterraneo, No. 98 Ab 01 . 
Salvini-Plawen, L. von. 1985. New interstitial Solenogastres (Mollusca). Stygologia, 1(1): 101- 

108. 

Salvini-Plawen, L. von. 1986. Caudofoveata e Solenogastres del Mediterraneo. Bolletino 

Malacologico, 22(9-12): 189-196. 
Simroth, H. 1 893a. Kritische Bemerkungen iiber die Systematik der Neomeniidae. Zeitschrift fiir 

Wissenschaftliche Zoologie, 56(2): 310-327. 
Simroth, H. 1 893b. Aplacophora. Pp. 1 33-233 in: H.G. Bronn 's Klassen und Ordnungen des Thier- 

Reichs, vol. 3, part 1. Winter, Leipzig. 
Soulsby, B.H. & Townsend, A.C. 1933. Catalogue of the books, manuscripts, maps and drawings in 

the British Museum (Natural History), vol. 7, Supplement (J-O). 967 pp. British Museum, 

London. 

Swedmark, B. 1956. Etude de la microfaune des sables marins de la region de Marseille. Archives 
de Zoologie Experimentale et Generale, 93 (Notes et Revue No. 2): 70-95. 

Swedmark, B. & Teissier, G. 1 967. Structure et adaptation Halammohydra adherens. Cahiers de 
Biologic Marine, 8: 63-74. 

Thiele, J. 1913a. Antarktische Solenogastren. Deutsche SUdpolar-Expedition 1901-1903, 
14(Zoologie, 6): 35-65. 

Thiele, J. 1913b. Mollusca. Solenogastres. Z)fl5 r/ew;c/7, 38: 1-57. 



258 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



Case 2739 

Helicarion Ferussac, 1821 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed 
conservation, and proposed designation of Helixarion cuvieri Ferussac, 
1821 as the type species 

Brian J. Smith 

5 Talinga Crescent, Shepparton, Victoria 3630, Australia 
Ron C. Kershaw 

45 West Tamar Road, Launceston, Tasmania 7250, Australia 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Helicarion Ferussac, 
1821 for an Australian genus of semislugs (terrestrial pulmonates). The name first 
appeared (about three months earlier) as Helixarion but this spelling was altered by the 
author. It is proposed to rule that Helicarion is the correct original spelling, and to 
designate Helixarion cuvieri Ferussac, 1821 as the type species, in accordance with 
accustomed understanding and usage. 



1. The Tableaux systematiques des animaux mollusques suivis d'un Prodrome 
general... (often referred to as the Prodrome) was a companion work to the Histoire 
naturelle, general et particuliere des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles. The Prodrome 
was issued in instalments (livraisons) of a few pages with livraisons 9-16 of the 
Histoire naturelle... over the years 1821-1822. Both works were begun by J.B.L. d'A. 
de Ferussac and subsequently edited and pubHshed by his son (A. E.J. P.J. F. d'A. de 
Ferussac) following his death. The Prodrome was published in two versions, large and 
small, termed 'folio' and 'quarto' by Kennard (1942, p. 12), the folio being on superior 
paper. Connolly (1912, p. 53) thought that the two editions appeared at different 
times but they were apparently published simultaneously (Kennard, 1942, p. 106). 
The Prodrome contained two parts: Part 1, Tableaux systematiques generaux de 
I'embranchement des mollusques, divises en families naturelles, and Part 2, Tableaux 
particuliers des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles. classe des gasteropodes: Tableau 
de la famille des Limaces (pp. 1-27), Limagons (pp. 1-94 folio, pp. 1-90 quarto, 
which included 'Corrections et Additions' on pp. 71-76 folio, pp. 67-72 quarto), and 
Auricules (pp. 95-1 14 folio, pp. 91-1 10 quarto). The text on each page of the foho and 
quarto editions is the same. However, the folio contains a four-page 'Avertissement' at 
the beginning of the Tableau de la famille des limagons which causes the subsequent 
pagination to differ in the two versions. The contents of each livraison and the dates of 
publication have been set out by Sherborn & Woodward (1901, pp. 74—76; text only) 
and Kennard (1942, pp. 12-17, 105-118; text and plates). The livraison contents given 
by Bourguignat (1925, pp. 15-18) are accurate but the pubUcation dates are misleading 
(Kennard, 1942, p. 13). Part 2 of the Prodrome (1821) appeared before Part 1 (1822). 

2. The generic name Helixarion first appeared in the Prodrome, Tableau de la famille 
des limagons (p. 23 folio, p. 19 quarto), published in Uvraison 9 on 6 April 1821 
(Sherborn & Woodward, 1901, p. 75; Kennard, 1942,p. 109). Bourguignat (1925, p. 16) 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 259 

gave the date 1820 for livraison 9 but this is thought to be incorrect (Kennard, 1942, 
p. 106). The name Helixarion also appears in the 'Explanation des planches' (p. vi) in 
the His Wire naturelle..., also published in livraison 9. The generic name appears seven 
times in livraison 9 with the spelling Helixarion (Kennard, 1942, p. 1 16). 

3. Ferussac regarded the original spelling of the generic name as incorrect and 
amended it in his section 'Corrections et Additions' of the Prodrome, Tableau de la 
famille des limagons (p. 71 folio, p. 67 quarto): 'p. 23 [folio, p. 19 quarto] Tableau 
synoptique, premier genre: Helixarion; lisez H e Hear ion . The 'Corrections et Additions' 
were pubHshed in Hvraison 11 on 13 July 1821 (Sherborn & Woodward, 1901, p. 75; 
Kennard, 1942, p. 109). Ferussac always subsequently used the spelling Helicarion. It 
appears, for example, in his 'Recapitulation des especes mentionnees dans le Tableau 
de la famille des limagons' (p. 75 folio, p. 71 quarto), also pubHshed in livraison 11, 
and the Prodrome, Part 1 {Tableaux systematiques generaux de I'embranchement des 
mollusques..., p. xxxi), pubHshed in livraison 15 on 13 April 1822 (Kennard, 1942, 
p. 110). Subsequent usage has been overwhelmingly in favour of Helicarion even 
when, before the dating of Ferussac's work had been investigated, it was believed that 
the spelling Helixarion dated from 1819. Ferussac's correction of the spelling was 
mentioned by Watson (1920, p. 1 10, footnote), Iredale (1937, p.7), Baker (1941, p. 265) 
and Burch (1976, p. 145), all of whom adopted Helicarion. Iredale noted that Helicarion 
had been 'spelt Helixarion, but corrected in Errata'. Watson wrote: 'On pp. 19 and 20 
(or 23 and 24) of Ferussac's Tabl... Fam. des limagons, 1821 the word is misspelt 
Helixarion; but on p. 67 (or 71) of the same work Ferussac himself corrected this 
blunder, and it would seem a pity to ignore his correction'. Baker also noted: 'Although 
Helixarion is certainly the prior spelling, Ferussac himself corrected it to Helicarion and 
the original form may have been a misprint, even if it does occur in two papers, both of 
which probably appeared with livraison 9'. Kennard (1942, p. 116) also mentioned the 
emendation but considered it invalid. Other authors who have used Helicarion include 
Quoy & Gaimard (1824, p. 465), Gray (1847, p. 169), Fischer (1883, p. 459), Adams & 
Adams (1855, p. 226), Tryon (1885, p. 168), Thiele (1931, p. 638), Rensch (1932, pp. 30, 
31), Solem (1966, p. 24), Franc in Grasse (1968, p. 581), Van Mol (1973), and Kershaw 
( 1 979, 1981). Authors who have used Helixarion are Thon ( 1 829, p. 1 49), Bourguignat 
(1883, p. 9), Neuville & Anthony (1909, p. 324) and Zilch (1959, p. 309). 

4. Ferussac established the genus Helixarion ( = Helicarion), and the two included 
species, cuvieri and freycineti (1821, Prodrome, Tableau de la famille des limagons, 
pp. 23, 24 folio, pp. 19, 20 quarto), but did not select a type species. Quoy & Gaimard 
(1824, p. 465) further described the species freycineti and commented that it had 
'served for the establishment of the genus'. Under Article 69a(iv) of the Code this is a 
subsequent designation of freycineti as the type species. Thon (1829, p. 149) followed 
this designation and stated that freycineti was the type species because it was the larger 
of the two included species. He mentioned cuvieri as a second, smaller species. Gray 
(1847, p. 169) selected cuvieri as the type species, apparently unaware of the earlier 
designation. Gray's selection was logical in that cuvieri was the first species to be 
mentioned, it was adequately described and illustrated from a shell which Ferussac had 
in his possession, and would be acceptable to most workers on that basis. Gray stated 
(p. 1 30) that where it was not clear which species an author had intended for the type of 
a genus, he had 'chosen either the best known species, or, if the author has given figures, 
the species which he has figured'. H. cuvieri was illustrated, but not named, on pi. 9, 



260 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



fig. 8 of the Histoire naturelle... (livraison 4, 18 September 1819; see Kennard, 1942, 
p. 109), the legend for which appeared in Histoire naturelle... 'Explanation des planches' 
(p. vi) (livraison 9, 6 April 1821). H. freycineti was figured later on a supplementary 
plate {Histoire naturelle..., pi. 9A, figs. 3 and 4, together with H. cuvieri, figs. 1 and 2) in 
livraison 13 (10 November 1821; see Kennard, 1942, p. 110), with the explanation 
{Histoire naturelle... 'Explanation des planches supplementaires', pp. i, ii) in livraison 
17 (2 November 1822; see Kennard, 1942, p. 106). (The generic name here appears as 
Helicarion). Kennard (1942, p. 116) was aware of Thon's (1829) citation of freycineti 
the type species and commented that the earlier designation meant that Gray's (1847) 
designation of cuvieri was invahd. 

5. The subfamily helicarioninae in Australia is divisible into two discrete groups, 
which can be characterised by features of the ovotestis, epiphallic gland-flagellum, 
penial structure and the oviduct (Kershaw, unpublished). The distribution of these 
groups may suggest separate migrations from the north. Helicarion cuvieri and 
H. freycineti are classified in different genera which cannot be included in the same 
group. H. cuvieri is considered to have relatively primitive features and a number of 
related species occur scattered within eastern Australia. H. freycineti, on the other 
hand, is clearly related to a range of mostly north eastern species placed in several 
genera. H. cuvieri has long been recognised as the type species of the genus Helicarion 
(see, for example. Zilch, 1959, p. 309 (who used Helixarion) and Burch, 1976, p. 134). In 
a revision of the genus, one of us (Kershaw, 1 979, 1981), unaware of Kennard's ( 1 942) 
paper, accepted the authority of Zilch with regard to the type species. The generic name 
Helicarion is established and well known for south eastern snails. The implications of 
the recognition of H. freycineti as its type species would be complex and difficult to 
predict but at the least would require the introduction of a new generic name for the 
clearly morphologically related group of south eastern species, the exclusion of a 
number of well known species from the genus, and a reappraisal of other established 
genera. It may be noted that Ferussac (1821, Prodrome, Tableau de la famille des 
limagons, p. 24 foHo, p. 20 quarto) wrote that he was not at all acquainted with the shell 
of H. freycineti. Kershaw (1979, pp. 150, 155, figs. 1, 16) designated a neotype for 
cuvieri and a lectotype for freycineti, and provided detailed descriptions of this type 
material; both specimens are in the Museum National d'Histoire naturelle, Paris. 

6. Both spelhngs of the family name, helicarionidae and helixarionidae, are 
in use, the former being that most frequently seen. Authorship of the former name 
(published as the sub-family helicarioninae) is usually ascribed to Godwin-Austen 
(1883 (October), p. 146), while Bourguignat (1883 (April), p. 9) is cited as author of the 
latter name. Recent authors who have adopted the spelling helixarionidae are Kira 
(1955, p. 176) and Vaught (1989, p. 96). Recent authors using helicarionidae include 
Thiele (1931, p. 637), Baker (1941, p. 208), Zilch (1959, p. 295, even though he used 
Helixarion as the generic name), Solem (1966, p. 22; 1978, p. 92), Franc in Grasse (1968, 
p. 578), Boss in Parker (1982, p. 1076), and Tillier (1984, p. 174). It would be confusing 
to spell the generic and family-group names in different ways. 

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers: 

(a) to rule that the correct original speUing of the generic name Helixarion 
Ferussac, 1821 (April) is deemed to be Helicarion; 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



261 



(b) to set aside all designations of type species for the nominal genus Helicarion 
Ferussac, 1821 prior to that by Gray (1847) of Helicarion cuvieri Ferussac, 
1821; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Helicarion 
Ferussac, 1821 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by 
Gray (1847) Helicarion cuvieri Ferussac, 1821, as ruled in (r)(b) above, spelling 
confirmed in (1 )(a) above; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specffic Names in Zoology the name cuvieri 
Ferussac, 1821, as published in the binomen Helixarion cuvieri (specific name 
of the type species of Helicarion Ferussac, 1821); 

(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name 
HELICARIONIDAE (correction of HELIXARIONIDAE Bourguignat, 1 883 (April)) (type 
genus Helicarion Ferussac, 1821); 

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invahd Generic Names in Zoology 
the name Helixarion Ferussac, 1821, ruled in (l)(a) above to be an incorrect 
original spelling of Helicarion; 

(6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in 
Zoology the name helixarionidae Bourguignat, 1883, an incorrect original 
spelling of helicarionidae. . . , 

Acknowledgement 

Our thanks are due to Mr David Heppell of the National Museums of Scotland for his 
extensive assistance with this submission. 

References 

Adams, H. & Adams, A. 1855. The Genera of Recent MoUusca; arranged according to their 

organization, vol. 2, part 23, pp. 221-252. Van Voorst, London. 
Baker, H.B. 1941. Zonitid snails from Pacific Islands, part 3. Genera other than Microcystinae. 

Bulletin of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, 166: 205-346. 
Boss, K.J. 1982. Mollusca. Pp. 945-1166 in Parker, S.P. (Ed.), Synopsis and Classification of 

Living Organisms, vol. 1. xvii, 1 166 pp. McGraw-Hill, New York. 
Bourguignat, J.R. 1883. Histoire malacologique de FAbyssinie. Annales des Sciences Naturelles 

(Zoologie), (6)15: art. 2, 9-162. 
Bourguignat, J.R. 1925. Dates des livraisons de I'Histoire des Mollusques de Ferussac et 

Deshayes. Journal de Conchyliologie, 69(1): 15-18. 
Burch, J.B. 1976. Outline of classification of Austrahan terrestrial molluscs (native and 

introduced). Journal of the Malacological Society of Australia, 3(3^): 127-156. 
Connolly, M. 1912. Note on the existence of two editions of Ferussac's Tableaux Systematiques. 

Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 10(2): 53. 
Ferussac, J.B.L. de'A. de. 1821-1822. Tableaux systematique des animaux mollusques... suivis 

d'un prodrome general pour tons les mollusques terrestres ou fluviatiles vivants ou fossiles. 

Pp. xlviii, 1-27, 1-110 folio edition; pp. xlviii, 1-27, 1-1 14 quarto edidon. Bertrand, Paris. 
Ferussac, J.B.L. de'A. de. 1819-[1832]. Histoire naturelle generate et particuliere des mollusques 

terrestres et fluviatiles. Oeuvre posthume de M'' le Baron J.B.L. d'Audebard de Ferussac... 

continue, mis en ordre, et public par M'' le Baron d'Audebard son fils... xvi, 128, 96a-z, 

96a->^ pp., 163 pis. Bertrand, Paris. 
Fischer, P. 1883. Manuel de Conchyliologie et de Paleontologie Conchy liologique ou histoire 

naturelle des mollusques vivants et fossiles, part 5, pp. 417-512. Savy, Paris. 
Franc, A. 1968. Sous-class des Pulmones. Pp. 325-607 in Grasse, P. -P. (Ed.), Mollusques 

gasteropodes et scaphopodes. Traite de Zoologie. Anatomic, Systematique. Biologic, vol. 5, 

part 3. Masson et Cie, Paris. 



262 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1 990 



Godwin-Austen, H.H. 1883. Land and freshwater Mollusca of India..., part 4, pp. 95-163. Taylor 
& Francis, London. 

Gray, J.E. 1 847. A list of the genera of recent Mollusca, their synonyma and types. Proceedings of 

the Zoological Society of London, 15: 129-219. 
Iredale, T. 1937. A basic list of the land Mollusca of Australia, part 2. The Australian Zoologist, 

9(1): 1-39. 

Kennard, A.S. 1942. The Histoire and Prodrome of Ferussac. Proceedings of the Malacological 

Society of London, 25: 12-17, 105-118. 
Kershaw, R.C. 1979. Redescription of Helicarion cuvieri from southern Tasmania and 

Helicarion freycineti from New South Wales (Pulmonata: Helicarionidae). Journal of the 

Malacological Society of Australia, 4(3): 145-1 56. 
Kershaw, R.C. 1981. Redescription of the genus Helicarion and of Helicarion niger (Quoy & 

Gaimard, 1832) from Victoria (Pulmonata: Helicarionidae). Journal of the Malacological 

Society of Australia, 5(1-2): 17-32. 
Kira, T. 1955. Coloured illustrations of the shells of Japan. 204 pp. Hoikusha, Osaka. 
Neuville, H. & Anthony, R. 1909. Recherches sur les mollusques d'Abyssinie (materiaux de la 

collection Maurice de Rothschild). Annales des Sciences Naturelles (Zoologie), (9) 8: 

241-341. 

Quoy, J.R.C & Gaimard, J.P. 1824. Voyage autour du monde... execute sur les corvettes de 
S.M. rUranie et la Physicienne, pendant les annees 1817, 1818, 1819 et 1820, vol. 3 
(Zoologie). 712 pp. Fillet Aine, Paris. 

Rensch, I. 1932. Neue Landmollusken aus dem Bismarck-Archipel, 3. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 98: 

27-36. 

Sherborn, CD. & Woodward, B.B. 1901. On the dates of publication of the Histoire naturelle 

generale et particuliere des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles and the Tableau systematique 

des animaux mollusques, by the Barons Ferussac and G.P. Deshayes. Annals and Magazine 

of Natural History, (7)8(43): 74-76. 
Solem, A. 1966. Some non-marine mollusks from Thailand, with notes on classification of the 

Helicarionidae. Spolia Zoologica Musei Hauniensis, 24: 1-1 10. 
Solem, A. 1978. Classification of the land Mollusca. Pp. 49-97 in Fretter, V. & Peake, J. (Eds.), 

Pulmonates, vol. 2A (systematics, evolution and ecology). 540 pp. Academic Press, London. 
Thiele, J. 1931. Handbuch der Systematischen Weichtierkunde, vol. 1, part 2 (Gastropoda. 2. 

Opisthobranchia (Hinterkeimer). 3. Pulmonata (Lungenschnecken), pp. "ill-ll^. Fischer, 

Jena. 

Thon, D. 1829. Helixarion, Ferussac (Mollusca). Pp. 149-150 in Ersche, J.S. & Gruber, J.G. 

(Eds.), Allgemeine Encyklopddie der Wissenschaften und KUnste, section 2 (H-N), part 5 

(Heinrich (Minnesanger) — Hequaesi). xii, 412 pp. Gleditsch, Leipzig. 
Tillier, S. 1984. Patterns of digestive tract morphology in the limacisation of heUcarionid, 

succineid and athoracophorid snails and slugs (Mollusca: Pulmonata). Malacologia, 25(1): 

173-192. 

Tryon, G.W. 1885. Manual of Conchology; structural and systematic, series 2, vol. 1, pp. 1-364, 
60 pis. (Testacellidae, Oleacinidae, Streptaxidae, Helicoidea, Vitrinidae, Limacidae, 
Arionidae). Published by the author, Philadelphia. 

Van Mol, J.J. 1973. Notes anatomiques sur les HeHcarionidae (mollusques, gasteropodes, 
pulmones). 2. Etudes des genres Pseudaustenia, Dyakia, Helicarion et comprenent la 
description de Papuarion, genre nouveau. Discussion sur la classification des Helicarionidae 
et affinites des Urocyclidae. Annales de la Societe Royale Zoologique de Belgique, 103: 
209-237. 

Vaught, K.C. 1989. A classification of the living Mollusca. xii, 189 pp. American Malacologists, 

Inc., Melbourne, Florida. 
Watson, H. 1920. The anatomy of two species of Helicarion from tropical Africa. Proceedings of 

the Malacological Society of London, 14(2,3): 91-113. 
Zilch, A. 1959. Part 2 (Euthyneura), no. 2, pp. 201^00 in Wenz, W. (Ed.), vol. 6 (Gastropoda) of 

Schindewolf, O.H. (Ed.), Handbuch der Paldozoologie. Borntraeger, Berhn. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



263 



Case2588 

Haminaea Leach, [1820] (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation 

Riccardo Giannuzzi-Savelli , ; .. . ' v ; ^ 

Via Mater Dolorosa 54,90146 Palermo, Italy > ^ . . : 

Anthea Gentry 

Secretariat, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The 
Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. 

Abstract. An application to confirm the spelling of a marine gastropod genus as 
Haminoea was published in 1987; the spellings Haminaea and Haminea are also in use. 
Subsequent investigation has shown that the name derives from Haminaea, which 
appeared in a paper by Leach which was formally unpublished but nevertheless widely 
circulated. The purpose of the present application is to rule that Haminaea Leach, 
[1820] is nomenclaturally available. 



1. An earher application (BZN 44: 166-167) sought to stabilise the spelling of the 
generic name Haminoea. Amended proposals were sent to the Commission for voting 
in March 1989 but further investigations and comments received during the voting 
period showed the need for more information and an Opinion has not been published. 

2. Earlier authors (Herrmannsen, 1852, p. 60; Jeffreys, 1867, p. 437; Iredale, 1914, 
p. 172) commented that there were three alternative spellings for the generic name and, 
as noted previously (BZN 44: 166, para. 4), these spellings {Haminaea, Haminoea and 
Haminea) are currently in use. This is due to the presence of an 'ae' diphthong in the 
original spelling of the name {Haminaea), and its complex history of publication. 

3. The generic name Haminaea appeared in two works by Leach, Classification of 
British Mollusca [1818] and A synopsis of the Mollusca of Great Britain [1820]. Accord- 
ing to Robert Burn {Geelong, Australia; 1990, in litt.) the name is an alternative spelling 
of the classical Aminaea, a district in Picenum on the Adriatic, famous for its wines. In 
his introduction to the Synopsis (p. xii) Leach wrote T have invariably named the 
genera, as far as possible, from their essential characters'. Where this was not possible 
Leach chose classical or biblical names which 'would not carry with them any descrip- 
tive significance' (see Knight, 1900, pp. 272, 275). Leach died before either of the works 
could be formally pubHshed and this was only undertaken many years later by Gray 
(1847 (October) and 1852 respectively) for his 'excellent friend and first teacher in 
zoology'. Nevertheless, both works were available to conchological workers in Britain 
and Europe from 1820 onwards through page proofs and hand-written copies of the 
page proofs. In his introduction to Leach's Classification { 1 847, p. 267) Gray wrote that 
'several British conchologists had even taken the trouble to copy the proof sheets of his 
work' and that 'several copies of Dr Leach's list were in several cabinets at the time he 
was at work on the subject' (see also para. 8 below). In his preface to Leach's Synopsis, 



264 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



Gray (1852, p. vii) noted that 'this work was in the course of printing when the Author 
was prevented from completing it by ill health, in 1 820. The first 1 1 6 pages were actually 
printed and the plates engraved, and more than one copy of the Proofs were in circu- 
lation at the time of its interruption'. Gray (1847, p. 268) also noted that 'Risso, Capt. 
Brown and others have pubhshed several of them [Leach's names] in their works'. 
Indeed, in reviewing Risso's 1826 work on molluscs from the south of France, 
Bourguignat (1861, pp. 17-22) commented at length on the large number of names for 
genera that had been derived from Leach's manuscript (cited as 1820); he noted that 
Leach had spent a period in Nice during his illness when he had met Risso. Brown 
(1827, preface) wrote that he 'found it necessary to introduce some of Dr Leach's 
Genera', and many of the names in his work were attributed to 'Leach MSS'. In his 
1844 work, Brown (preface) noted 'In recording the names of those to whom the 
Author is indebted for aid... he must particularly notice those of his late lamented 
friend Dr Leach,... [who] with that noble Hberality for which he was prominently 
distinguished — although engaged with a similar work at the time the Author was 
preparing his First Edition — threw open his treasures for his use, and otherwise aided 
him as far as possible in his investigations'. Again, a number of names in this work were 
credited to 'Leach MSS' and 'Leach, Moll.', with references to the page proofs of 
Leach's Synopsis. Brown (p. 134) further cited Leach's work: 'Synopsis of British 
Mollusca, 1820 (UnpubUshed)'. In the introduction to his revision of Turton's Manual 
of the land and fresh-water shells of the British Islands, Gray ( 1 840, p. 1 ) noted that other 
authors had 'all, in a great measure, worked from the collection now under my charge, 
which contains the materials used by Dr Leach in preparing his as yet unedited work on 
British Mollusca', and (p. 58)thatcopiesof Leach's work ('London, 1820. 8vo;notyet 
published') were in the possession of other workers. Herrmannsen (1846, 1847-1849, 
1852) also cited Leach's manuscript ('1820. Brit. Moll.') and credited several names to 
it; furthermore, he recognised that a number of names in Risso (1826) and Turton 
(1831) originated in Leach's unpublished work (see, for example, 1846, pp. 80, 580, 
582). In 1846 (p. 1, footnote) Herrmannsen noted 'Leachii Synopsis Molluscorum 
Britanniae, liber rarissimus, typis quidem jam anno 1820 excusus, sed hucusque pub- 
lici juris non factus... omni auctoritate destituitur'. In 1852, Herrmannsen (p. 60) 
recorded the name Haminaea credited to 'Leach mscr., t[este] Gray, 1847, Ann. Mag. 
N.H., XX'. Knight (1900, p. 271) referred to part of Leach's Synopsis having been in 
type and circulated from 1820. The name Haminaea would thus have been known to 
many from Leach's two manuscripts. There is a bound copy of the page proofs 
of Leach's Synopsis [1820] in the mollusc library of the Natural History Museum, 
London (see Woodward's Catalogue of the Library of the British Museum ( Natural 
History), 1910, p. 1072); Haminaea appears on p. 57. The proofs are marked, possibly 
in CD. Sherborn's handwriting, '1820, or more Hkely 1819'. Gray (1847 (November), 
p. 161) gave their date as 1819, although earlier (1840, p. 58) as 1820. They were 
certainly in circulation by 1 820 and have been cited with the latter date by subsequent 
authors. 

4. The name appeared, but with the spelling Haminoea, in the Conchology section of 
Part 2 (The natural history of the district... by Turton & Kingston) of The Teignmouth, 
Dawlish and Torquay guide (1830), by 'N.T. Carrington and others'. The Catalogue of 
the library of the BM(NH) (1915, p. 2155), following Jeffreys (1867, pp. 108, 231), 
mentioned that the portion on conchology 'seems to have been issued separately in 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



265 



1829'. Copies of this 'separate' publication, entitled Conchology. An enumeration of 
such marine shells as have been found on the adjacent coasts, were included in editions of 
A guide to the watering places on the coast between the Exe and the Dart. It appears that 
there were editions for 1817, 1818 (McMillan, 1961, p. 37), and 1821, and Burns (1990, 
in Utt.) refers to an 1 823 edition. The Enumeration was anonymous and unpaginated (it 
has 20 pp.) and does not include the name Haminoea. The introduction (p. viii) to the 
guide notes the anonymity of the contributors: 'Delicacy forbids the pubUsher from 
revealing the names of those who have assisted him; the articles of conchology, and 
botany, will speak for themselves: for the rest, he craves the indulgence of a liberal 
public'. By about 1828 the guide became The Teignmouth, Dawlish and Torquay guide, 
and in 1830 this included a second part {The natural history of the district...) by Turton 
& Kingston, with a revised version of the Enumeration, entitled Conchology and, for the 
first time, a supplementary portion called Conchology, arranged on the amended system. 
The latter included the first appearance of the generic name Haminoea (genus no. 63). 
Part 2 of The Teignmouth, Dawlish and Torquay guide was issued bound in with the 
Teignmouth guide and as a separate publication, in both cases without pagination (but 
c. 200 pp.); the 1829 date for publication given by Jeffreys probably referred to a proof 
copy and 1830 is the correct date (Iredale, 1914, pp. 171-172). There was at least one 
subsequent edition of The Teignmouth guide, in 1832. 

5. Kingston was a botanist who collaborated with Turton on the natural history 
part of the guide, and the conchology section, revised from the Enumeration, was 
probably by Turton alone. Jeffreys (1867, p. 231) mentioned the 'Enumeration of 
marine shells... a copy of which was presented to me by Dr Turton 'from the author" 
and (p. 433) 'Turton in his httle treatise entitled Conchology , arranged on the amended 
system'. Winckworth (1932, p. 231), McMillan (1961, p. 37), Thompson (1976, pp. 18, 
98, 117; 1988, p. 40) and Thompson & Brown (1976, p. 24) have all attributed 
Haminoea (as 'Haminea'' in Thompson and Thompson & Brown) to Turton alone, 
and the name would be formally attributed to '[Turton] in Turton & Kingston in 
Carrington' (Recommendation 51B of the Code). Turton's conchological publications 
show many references to Leach's Synopsis (see, for example, Turton (1831) in which 
several names are cited with references to Leach's page proofs) and it seems that the 
spelling Haminoea arose in transcription either between Leach's proofs and Turton's 
manuscript for his Conchology, arranged on the amended system, or between the latter 
and the printed page. After carefully studying how Turton wrote 'a' and 'o' in a letter 
written in 1828, Burn (1990, in htt.) suspects that the spelUng Haminoea was a printer's 
error. ■ > 

6. Gray formally published Leach's Classification [1818] in October 1847, and 
Leach's Synopsis [1820] in 1852 (see para. 3 above). Leach's name Haminaea appeared 
in these publications on pp. 268 and 40 respectively. 

7. The spelling Haminea first appeared in Gray's (1847 (November), p. 161) publi- 
cation A list of the genera of Recent Mollusca, their synonyma and types, the name being 
based on 'Leach MSS 1819'. In fact. Leach's [1820] work used the spelling Haminaea 
(para. 3 above). It is noteworthy that Gray's own bound copy of his November 1847 
publication in the Natural History Museum, London, which is interleaved with notes 
by the author (see Catalogue of the library of the BM( NH), 1 904, p. 713), includes many 
alterations and insertions to the text made by Gray in his own hand; one is an emenda- 
tion of the printed 'Haminea' to 'Haminaea', together with an addition '1818. I.e. xx 268 



266 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



Brit. Moll.' (referring to the name in Leach's [1818] manuscript and its 1 847 publication 
(Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 20: 268)) after 'Leach MSS 1819'. 

8. It is thus evident that the spellings Haminoea and Haminea arose from the name 
Haminaea in Leach's widely circulated [1818] and [1820] manuscripts, where the name 
was spelt with an 'ae' diphthong. As mentioned in para. 2 above, all three spellings of 
the name are in use. The original application sought to conserve the spelling Haminoea; 
however, stability in the nomenclature would be better served by conserving Haminaea, 
Leach's original spelling and the source of the other two, through a Commission ruling 
that the name Haminaea be deemed available from Leach, [1820]. In 1847 Gray, in his 
introduction to Leach's Classification (p. 267), wrote 'I am much inclined, as these 
names were for years exhibited in the Museum collection and in the cabinets of Mr 
Stephens, the late Mr James Sowerby, my own and others, to regard them as published 
and having priority from 1818'. However, Gray's 1847 published text of Leach's [1818] 
paper indicates that the name Haminaea was probably a nomen nudum in 1818 (there is 
no copy of this manuscript in the Natural History Museum, London). In the [1820] 
page proofs of Leach's Synopsis the genus and species are described on p. 57 (see also 
p. 40 of the work as published by Gray in 1852) and the name would be available. It 
is proposed that only the name Haminaea should be made available from Leach's 
[1820] manuscript; no other names in current usage are attributed to Leach's [1818] or 
[1820] works and disturbance in mollusc nomenclature would be caused in making the 
whole of these manuscripts available. To avoid any confusion in the future about the 
availability of other names, we propose that Leach's Classification of the British 
Mollusca [1818] and Synopsis of Mollusca of Great Britain [1820] be suppressed for 
nomenclatural purposes. 

9. Leach's [1 820] MS included three species in Haminaea: H. cuvieri, H. dilatata and 
H. elegans, H. cuvieri being a replacement name for Bulla hydatis auctt. B. hydatis 
Linnaeus, 1758 was excluded from Haminaea as Leach believed this 'belonged to a very 
different genus', but [Turton] in Turton & Kingston (1830, genus no. 63) noted that 
Haminoea (sic) included B. hydatis, and Gray (1847 (November), p. 161) designated 
B. hydatis as the type species of Haminea (recte Haminaea; see para. 7) 'Leach MSS 
1819'; neither Turton nor Gray cited an author for hydatis. Brown (1844, p. 57) and 
Jeffreys (1867, p. 439) considered hydatis auctt. {— cuvieri Leach) to be included in 
hydatis Linnaeus, while Forbes & Hanley (1853, p. 531) thought that it was 'probably' 
included. Herrmannsen (1852, p. 60) gave hydatis Linnaeus as the type species of 
Haminaea. Pilsbry (1895, p. 352), Winckworth (1932, p. 231), Zilch (1959, p. 41 (citing 
the generic name as ^Haminaea Turton & Kingston, 1830')) and Cernohorsky (1985, 
p. 63 (citing the name as 'Haminea Leach in Gray, 1847')) accepted Bulla hydatis 
Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species. 

10. As mentioned in the original application (BZN 44: 166, para. 5), the family- 
group name hamineinae (= hamineidae) Pilsbry, 1895 (p. 351) was based on the 
spelling Haminea. However, Pilsbry's Ust of authors who had previously used the 
generic name (p. 352) included 'Haminea Leach MS. Gray, P.Z.S., 1847 p. 161' and 
'Haminaea Leach, Moll. Gt. Brit., p. 40, 1852'. The name Haminea was an incorrect 
subsequent speUing or unjustified emendation of Leach's Haminaea (para. 7 above) 
and it is proposed that the spelling haminaeidae be formally adopted. 

11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



267 



(1) to use its plenary powers: 

(a) to suppress for nomenclatural purposes the works The classification of the 
British Mollusca[lS 1 8] and A synopsis of the Mollusca of Great Britain [1 820] 
by W.E. Leach; 

(b) to rule that the generic name Haminaea Leach is deemed to be available in A 
synopsis of the MoUusca of Great Britain [1820], despite suppression of the 
work in ( 1 )(a) above; 

(c) to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus 
Haminaea Leach, [1 820] and to designate Bulla hydatis Linnaeus, 1 758 as the 
type species; 

(2) to rule that the correct original spelling of the family-group name 
HAMINEIDAE Pilsbry, 1895 is deemed to be haminaeidae; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Haminaea 
Leach, [1820] (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (l)(c) above 
Bulla hydatis Linnaeus, 1758; 

(4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name hydatis 
Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Bulla hydatis (specific name of the 
type species of Haminaea Leach, [1820]); 

(5) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name 
HAMINAEIDAE Pilsbry, 1 895 (spelling emended in (2) above) (type genus Haminaea 
Leach, [1820]); 

(6) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and InvaHd 
Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Haminoea [Turton] in Turton & Kingston in Carrington, 1830, an incorrect 
subsequent spelling of Haminaea Leach, [1 820]; 

(b) Haminea Gray, 1847, an incorrect subsequent spelling of Haminaea Leach, 
[1820]; 

(7) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in 
Zoology the name hamineidae Pilsbry, 1895 (spelling emended to haminaeidae 
in (2) above). 

(8) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoology the 
papers The classification of the British Mollusca [1818] and A synopsis of the 
Mollusca of Great Britain [1820] by W.E. Leach, as suppressed in (l)(a) above. 

Acknowledgement 

We thank Dr Robert Burn for his interesting and helpful letter on Haminaea which 
included a number of additional references. 

References 

Bourguignat, J.R. 1 861 . Etude synonymique sur les mollusques des Alpes Maritimes publies par A. 

Risso en 1826. 84 pp., 1 pi. Bailliere, Paris. 
Brown, T., Captain. 1 827. Illustrations of the conchology of Great Britain and Ireland, v pp., 52 pis. 

Lizars, Edinburgh. 

Brown, T., Captain. 1844. Illustrations of the recent conchology of Great Britain and Ireland... xiii, 

145 pp., 59 pis. Smith, Elder & Co., London. 
Cernohorsky, W.O. 1985. The taxonomy of some Indo-Pacific Mollusca Part 12. With remarks 

on two American gastropod species. Records of the Auckland Institute and Museum, 22: 

47-67. 



268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1 990 

Forbes, E. & Hanley, S. 1853. A History of British Mollusca and their shells, vol. 3. 616 pp. Van 
Voorst, London. 

Gray, J.E. 1840. Manual of the land and fresh-water shells of the British Islands, with figures of 
each of the kinds, by William Turton, M.D. A new edition, thoroughly revised and much 
enlarged, ix, 324 pp., 12 pis. Longman, Orme, Brown, Green & Longmans, London. 

Gray, J.E. 1847 (November). A list of the genera of recent Mollusca, their synonyma and types. 
Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 15: 129-219. 

Herrmannsen, A.N. 1846-1849. Indicus generum Malacozoorum primordia, vol. 1, xxvii, 636 pp. 
(1846); vol. 2, xlii, 717 pp. (1847-1849). Fischer, Cassellis. 

Herrmannsen, A.N. 1 852. Indicus generum Malacozoorum. Supplementa et corrigenda, v, 1 40 pp. 
Fischer, Cassellis. 

Iredale, T. 1914. On some invalid generic names. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of 
London, 11(3): 170-178. 

Jeffreys, J.G. 1867. British Conchology, or an account of the Mollusca which now inhabit the 
British Isles and the surrounding seas, vol. 4. 486 pp., 8 pis. Van Voorst, London. 

Knight, G.A.F. 1900. The etymology of the names Azeca and Assiminea. Journal of Conchology, 
9(9): 271-276. 

Leach, W.E. [1818]. The classification of the British Mollusca. (Page proofs, unpublished, not 
seen). 

Leach, W.E. [1820]. A synopsis of the Mollusca of Great Britain. 1-160, 179-192 pp., 2, 6-10 pis. 
(Page proofs, unpublished, in the Natural History Museum, London, and perhaps else- 
where). 

Leach, W.E. 1847 (October). In Gray, J.E. (Ed.). The classification of the British Mollusca. 

Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 20(133): 267-273. 
Leach, W.E. 1852. In Gray, J.E. (Ed.), A synopsis of the Mollusca of Great Britain. 376 pp., pis. 

2-13. Van Voorst, London. 
McMillan, N.F. 1961. Book notes, especially relating to Turton's works. Journal of Conchology, 

25(1): 36-38. 

Pilsbry, H.A. 1895. Tryon's manual of Conchology; structural and systematic, vol. 15. 436 pp. 

Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. 
Risso, A. 1826. Histoire naturelle des principals productions de I 'Europe meridionale et particu- 

lierement de celles des environs de Nice et des Alpes Maritimes, vol. 4 (Aper(;u sur Thistoire 

naturelle des mollusques... et des coquilles; Observations sur differents annelides...). 439 pp., 

12 pis. Levrault, Paris. 

Thompson, T.E. 1976. Biology of opisthobranch molluscs, vol. 1. 207 pp., 21 pis. Ray Society, 
London. 

Thompson, T.E. 1988. Molluscs: benthic opisthobranchs (Mollusca: Gastropoda). Keys and notes 
for the identification of the species. 356 pp., 146 pis. (Synopses of the British fauna, new 
series, No. 8, Ed. 2). Brill, Leiden. 

Thompson, T.E. & Brown, G.H. 1976. British opisthobranch molluscs (Mollusca: Gastropoda): 
keys and notes for the identification of the species. 203 pp., 1 pi., 105 figs. (Synopses of the 
British fauna, new series, No. 8). Academic Press, London. 

[Turton, W.j [1817]. Conchology. An enumeration of such marine shells as have been found on the 
adjacent coasts (20 pp., unpaginated) in Anon, A guide to the watering places on the coast 
between the Exe and the Dart; including Teignmouth, Dawlish and Torquay... with a short 
description of the neighbourhood. Introduction, pp. v-viii; part 1 (Teignmouth), 1-98 pp.; 
part 2 (Dawlish and its vicinity), 1-84 pp.; part 3 (Torquay and its vicinity), 5-72 pp. 
Teignmouth. 

Turton, W. X^lil . A manual of the land and fresh-water shells of the British Islands. ..v\i\, 152pp., 10 
pis. Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown & Green, London. 

Turton, W. & Kingston, J.F. 1830. Part 2, The natural history of the district; or, lists of the different 
species of animals, vegetables and minerals, and their respective localities, scientifically arran- 
ged. ..{c. 200 pp., unpaginated) in Carrington, N.T. et al., The Teignmouth, Dawlish and 
Torquay guide... (Part 1 has 230 pp., paginated). Teignmouth. 

Winckworth, R. 1932. The British marine Mollusca. Journal of Conchology, 19(7): 21 1-252. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



269 



Woodward, B.B. 1904, 1910, 1915. Catalogue of the library of the British Museum (Natural 
History), vol. 2 (E-K), pp. 501-1038 (1904); vol. 3 (L-O), pp. 1039-1494 (1910); vol. 5 
(SO-Z), pp. 1957-2403 (1915). British Museum (Natural History), London. 

Zilch, A. 1959. Part 2 (Euthyneura) /« Wenz, W. (Ed.), vol. 6 (Gastropoda) of Schindewolf, O.H. 
von (Ed.), Handbuch der Paldo:oologie. xn,Si4 pp. BorntTaeger, Berlin. • ; . ' 



270 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



Case 2670 

Kobeltia Seibert, 1873 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed confirmation 
of Avion hortensis Ferussac, 1819 as the type species 

Thierry Backeljau 

Koninklijk Belgisch Instituut voor Natuurwetenschappen, Vautierstraat 29, 
B-1040 Brussel, Belgium 

Abstract. The purpose of this appHcation is to confirm the nominal species Arion 
hortensis Ferussac, 1819 as the type species of the terrestrial slug subgenus Kobeltia 
Seibert, 1873, in accordance with existing usage. The original description was of a 
misidentified species. 



1. Seibert (1873, p. 81) considered a slug which he supposed was Arion hortensis 
Ferussac, 1 8 19 to be generically distinct from other species of Arion Ferussac, 1819 and 
proposed the new name Kobeltia. This name was neglected by subsequent authors for 
more than half a century until Hesse (1926, p. 66) adopted it as a 'section' within the 
genus Arion, with /i. hortensis Ferussac as the first included species. Most authors since 
have followed Hesse's system of classification, replacing 'section' by 'subgenus'. 

2. Ferussac's nominal species A. hortensis (1819, pp. 65-66) is represented by pi. 2 
(not pi. 12 as cited on p. 65), figs. 4-5. He also described A. hortensis var. a (1819, 
pp. 65-66, pi. 2, fig. 6), which may well be the species later described by Mabille (1868, 
p. 137) as v4. distinctus (Davies, 1979, p. 123; see para. 6 below); this variant is excluded 
from the type series of A. hortensis by Article 72b of the Code. The dates of pubhcation 
of Ferussac's work were investigated by Sherborn & Woodward (1901, pp. 74—76; text 
only) and Kennard (1942, pp. 12-17, 105-1 18; text and plates). 

3. Seibert's interpretation of Arion hortensis Ferussac, 1819 when he proposed 
Kobeltiav/as based on the work of Lehmann (1873, pp. 21-24, pi. 2, figs. 4a, pi. 7, fig. 4). 
Lehmann's description and figures, however, are not of A. hortensis but a species 
currently referred to as Arion (Carinarion) fasciatus. This latter species was originally 
described as Limax fasciatus by Nilsson in 1823 (pp. 3-5) and it has been studied in 
detail by a number of authors, including Likharev & Wiktor (1980, pp. 407-409). 
Lehmann's misidentification of A. hortensis was noted by Simroth (1885, pp. 277-278, 
288), who assigned Lehmann's species to A. bourguignati Mabille, 1868 (p. 138). 

4. Cockerell (1891, p. 20) considered A. bourguignati to be a junior subjective 
synonym of A. circumscriptus Johnston, 1828 (p. 76), which Hesse (1926, p. 65) selected 
as the type species of his 'section' (now subgenus) Carinarion. Lohmander (1937) 
suggested that three very closely related species had been confused under the name 
'circumscriptus'': A. circumscriptus Johnston, 1828 s.s., A. silvaticus Lohmander, 1937 
and Limax fasciatus Nilsson, 1 823. Whether these are indeed distinct biological species 
is still a much debated issue (Backeljau et al., 1987). 

5. Acceptance of Seibert's designation of A. hortensis sensu Lehmann (1873), now 
recognised (Backeljau & De Bruyn, 1990, in press) to be Limax fasciatus Nilsson, 1 823, 
as the type species of Kobeltia Seibert, 1873 would undoubtedly give rise to much 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 271 

confusion in the nomenclature of what is already a taxonomically complex group. In 
addition, if fasciatus and circumscriptus are considered to be synonyms, or to belong in 
the same subgenus, Carinarion Hesse, 1926 would become a junior subjective synonym 
of Kobeltia Seibert, 1873. Following Hesse's (1926) monograph the identity of the 
type species of Kobeltia has been understood as 'Arion hortensis" (see para. 6 below) and 
not Limax fasciatus Nilsson, 1823. A list of more than 40 references is held by the 
Commission Secretariat demonstrating usage of the name Kobeltia in which Hesse's 
interpretation of the genus group has been adopted, and I have not found a single paper 
in which fasciatus is even included in the subgenus. 

6. Recently, Davies (1977, p. 173; 1979, p. 123) has shown that three distinct taxon- 
omic species have been known under the name 'A. hortensis\ The first of these species is 
A. hortensis s.s. (Ferussac, 1819, p. 65, pi. 2, figs. 4-5). The species is known from the 
British Isles, parts of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland. 
Two original specimens, labelled 'montagnes env. de Clermont (Oise)', are in the 
Museum National d'Histoire naturelle in Paris, one of which has been dissected and 
was designated as the lectotype by De Winter (1984, p. 3, fig. 3). The second species, 
A. distinctus Mabille, 1868 (p. 137), is probably the species represented by Ferussac's 
A. hortensis var. a (1819, pi. 2, fig. 6). It is found in much of Europe and North America 
and has a type locality at Sevres, near Paris. No original material survives but a neotype 
(no. alcohol 9120 in the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden, collected from 
Sevres in 1983) was designated by De Winter (1984, p. 3, figs. 2 and 4). The third 
species, A. owenii Davies, 1979 (p. 126), may possibly be the same as Limax subfuscus 
Draparnaud, 1805, citedby Taylor (1905, p. 217) as y4. hortensis Ferussac var. subfusca. 
A. oweniihas a holotype, BM(NH) 197910, from East Donegal in Ireland. The species 
is known from the north of Ireland and locally in southern Scotland, Wales and 
Cornwall. The three species differ in their genitalia, spermatophores, mating behaviour 
and, to a lesser extent, in their external morphology (Davies, 1977, 1979; Backeljau, 
1981; De Wilde, 1983; and Backeljau & Marquet, 1985), and have been shown to be 
biochemically distinct (Backeljau, 1985a and b). All three are included in the subgenus 
Kobeltia. 

7. A number of 20th century authors have described Kobeltia (see, for example, 
Hesse, 1 926, p. 66; Germain, 1 930, p. 77; Wiktor, 1 973, p. 43; Likharev & Wiktor, 1 980, 
p. 409; and Grossu, 1 983, pp. 5 5-58). Backeljau & De Winter ( 1 987, p. 1 77) discussed the 
problem of three closely related species having hitherto been confused as 'A. hortensis'. 
To avoid further confusion, and to rectify Seibert's earlier mistake in the identity of 
hortensis with Limax fasciatus, I now propose to confirm A . hortensis Ferussac, 1 8 1 9, as 
defined by the lectotype designated by De Winter ( 1 984), as the type species of Kobeltia. 
It may be noted that most, if not all, of the older records of 'A. hortensis'' from 
Germany, Seibert's native country, are actually of A. distinctus, and only one record of 
A. hortensis s.s. is known (Backeljau & De Winter, 1987). 

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to confirm that Arion hortensis Ferussac, 1819, is the type species of the nominal 
genus Kobeltia Sdhert, 1873; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Kobeltia 
Seibert, 1873 (gender: feminine), type species Arion hortensis Ferussac, 1819, as 
confirmed in ( 1 ) above; 



272 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name hortensis 
Ferussac, 1 8 1 9, as published in the binomen Arion hortensis (specific name of the 
type species of Kobeltia Seibert, 1 873), and as defined by the lectotype designated 
by De Winter (1984). 

References 

Backeljau, T. 1981. Biometrie, ecologie, ethologie en systematiek van het Arion hortensis complex 

in Belgie. Unpublished Lie. thesis, Universitaire Instelling Antwerpen. 78 pp. 
Backeljau, T. 1985a. A preliminary account of species specific protein patterns in albumen gland 

extracts Arion hortensis s.l. (Pulmonata, Arionidae). Basteria, 49(1-3): 1 1-17. 
Backeljau, T. 1985b. Estimation of genie similarity within and between Arion hortensis s.l. and 

A. intermedius by means of isoelectric focused esterase patterns in hepatopancreas 

homogenates (Mollusca, Pulmonata; Arionidae). Zeitschrift fiir zoologische Systematik und 

Evolutionsforschung, 23(1): 38—49. 
Backeljau, T., Ahmadyar, S.Z., Selens, M., Van Rompaey, J. & Verheyen, W. 1 987. Comparative 

electrophoretic analyses of three European Carinarion species (Mollusca, Pulmonata: 

Arionidae). Zoologica Scripta, 16: 209-222. 
Backeljau, T. & De Bruyn, L. 1990. On the infrageneric systematics of the genus Arion Ferussac, 

1819 (Mollusca, Pulmonata). Bulletin de I'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, 

60: 35-67. 

Backeljau, T. & De Winter, A.J. 1987. An electrophoretic characterisation of three paratypes of 

Arion fagophilus De Winter, 1986, with notes on the subgeneric division of the genus Arion 
Ferussac, 1819 (Mollusca, Pulmonata). Zeitschrift fiir zoologische Systematik und 
Evolutionsforschung, 25(3): 169-180. 
Backeljau, T. & Marquet, R. 1985. An advantageous use of multivariate statistics in a biometrical 
study on the Arion hortensis complex (Pulmonata: Arionidae) in Belgium. Malacological 
Review, 18(1-2): 57-72. 

Cockerell. T.D.A. 1891. Arion circumscriptus, J ohnston = Bourguignati, Mab. The British 
Naturalist, 1891(1): 20. 

Davies, S.M. 1977. The Arion hortensis complex with notes on A. intermedius Normand 

(Pulmonata: Arionidae). Journal of Conchology, 29(4): 173-187. 
Davies, S.M. 1979. Segregates of the Arion hortensis complex (Pulmonata: Arionidae), with the 

description of a new species, Arion owenii. Journal of Conchology, 30(2): 123-127. 
De Winter, A.J. 1984. The Arion hortensis complex (Pulmonata: Arionidae): designation of 

types, descriptions, and distributional patterns, with special reference to the Netherlands. 

Zoologische Mededelingen, Leiden, 59(1): 1-17. 
Draparnaud, J.P.R. 1805. Histoire naturelle des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France. 

164 pp., 13 pis. Colas, Paris. 
Ferussac, J.B.L. d'A. de. 1819-[1832]. Histoire naturelle, generale et particuliere des mollusques 

terrestres et fluviatiles. Oeuvre posthume de Mr le Baron J.B.L. d'Audebard de Ferussac ... 

continue, mis en ordre, et public par Mr le Baron d'Audebard son fils... xvi, 128, 96a-z, 96a-X 

pp., 163 pis. Bertrand, Paris. 
Germain, L. 1930. Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles (premiere partie). Faune de France, 21; 

1-477. 

Grossu, A.V. 1983. Gastropoda Romaniae. Ordo Stylommatophora. 4. Suprafam.: Arionacea, 

Zonitacea, Ariophantacea si Helicacea. 563 pp. Editura Litera, Bucuresti. 
Hesse, P. 1926. Die Nacktschnecken der palaearktischen Region. Abhandlungen des Archiv fiir 

Molluskenkunde, 2(1); 1-152. 
Johnston, G. 1828. A few remarks on the class Mollusca, in Dr. Flemming's work on British 

animals; with descriptions of some new species. Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 5: 

74-81. 

Kennard, A.S. 1942. The Histoire and Prodrome of Ferussac. Proceedings of the Malacological 
Society of London, 25(1); 12-17,25(3); 105-118. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



273 



Lehmann, R. 1 873. Die lebenden Schnecken imd Muscheln der Umgegend Stettins und in Pommern 

mil besonderer Beriicksichtigimg ihres anatomischen Baues. 328 pp., 22 pis. Fischer, Cassel. 
Likharev, I.M. & Wiktor, A. 1980. The fauna of the slugs of the USSR and adjacent countries 

(Gastropoda terrestria nuda). Fauna SSSR Mollyuski, (122)3(5): 1-437. [In Russian.] 
Lohmander, H. 1937. Uber die nordischen Formen von Arion circumscriptus Johnston. Acta 

Societatis pro Fauna et Flora fennica, 60: 90-1 12. 
Mabille, J. 1868. Des limaciens europeens. Revue et Magasin de Zoologie, (2)20: 129-146. 
Nilsson, S. 1823. Historia molluscorum sveciae terrestrium et fluviatilium breviter delineata. xx, 

124 pp. Lundae. 

Seibert, H. 1873. DiecolorirtenTafeln des Lehmann'schenwerkes. Nachrichtsblatt der deutschen 

Malakozoologischen Gesellschaft, 6: 79-82. 
Sherborn, CD. & Woodward, B.B. 1901. On the dates of publication of the Histoire naturelle 

generate et particuliere des moUusques terrestres et fluviatiles and the Tableaux systematiques 

des animaux moUusques, by the Barons Ferussac and G.P. Deshayes. Annals and Magazine 

of Natural History, (7)8(43): 74^76. 
Simroth, H. 1885. Versuch einer Naturgeschichte der deutschen Nacktschnecken und ihrer 

europaischen Verwandten. Zeitschrift fiir Wissenschaftliche Zoologie, 42(2): 203-366. 
Taylor, J.W. 1905. Monograph of the land and freshwater Mollusca of the British Isles. 

Testacellidae, Limacidae, Arionidae, part 2. Pp. 161-224. 21 pis. Taylor Brothers, Leeds. 
Wiktor, A. 1973. Die Nacktschnecken Polens, Arionidae, Milacidae, Limacidae (Gastropoda, 

Stylommatophora). Monografie Fauny Polski, 1: 1-182. 



274 



Bulletin of Zoological Noinenclature 47(4) December 1990 



Case 2747 

Strophomena de Blainville, 1825 (Brachiopoda): proposed designation of 
Leptaena planumbona Hall, 1847 as the type species 

L.R.M. Cocks 

Department of Palaeontology , The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, 
London SW7 5 BD, U.K. 

Abstract. The purpose of this appHcation is to stabilise the name of the important 
Ordovician brachiopod genus Strophomena de Blainville, 1825 by designating 
Leptaena planumbona Hall, 1847 as its type species in place of the poorly known species 
Strophomena rugosa de Blainville, 1825. 



1. The brachiopod genus Strophomena has given its name not only to the family 
STROPHOMENiDAE King, 1846 and the superfamily strophomenacea, but also to the 
suborder Strophomenidina and the order Strophomenida; this last is the most 
numerous order of articulate brachiopods with more than a thousand genera and 
includes the productids and chonetids. This classification has been accepted for a 
long time and forms an integral part of the brachiopod volume of the Treatise on 
Invertebrate Paleontology (Williams, 1965). 

2. However, the nominal genus Strophomena is not well founded and this appli- 
cation proposes action to stabilise the name. The problem has been well known for over 
a hundred years, being discussed at length by, among others, Davidson (1853, pp. 105- 
108), Hall & Clarke (1892, pp. 246-250), Nickles (1903, pp. 214^217) and Pope (1976, 
p. 154), but never resolved. 

3. Rafinesque & CHfford (1820, p. 232) referred to 'plusieurs nouveaux genres, tels 
que, gonotrema, diclisma, pleurinia, stropheria, strophomenes, clipsilis etc., outre les vrais 
genres terebratula et productus' when describing a new fauna from the Ordovician of 
Kentucky; however, there was no further description of 'strophomenes' apart from 
making clear that they were shells. Defrance (1824, p. 5) used the phrase 'de coquilles 
bivalves du genre Strophomene' when describing a block from the Silurian of Dudley, 
England; in a table (p. 1 10) he stated that 'Strophomene' had three species but he did 
not name them. De Blainville (1825, p. 513) was the first to give a proper description of 
the genus and also the first to use the spelling Strophomena, thereby establishing the 
name. Under Article 50a of the Code, authorship must be attributed to de Blainville 
even though he attributed authorship to Rafinesque. 

4. De Blainville mentioned only one species by name, 'Strophomena rugosa Rafin.', 
which is therefore the type species by monotypy with de Blainville as the author. He 
figured (pi. 53, fig. 2) the dorsal and ventral valves of one specimen of Strophomena 
rugosa, although the plate was probably not pubUshed until September 1827 (note in 
the copy in the Natural History Museum, London). The two figures show a generalised 
shield-shaped brachiopod which might represent a strophomenid, but could be a 
rafinesquinid or even a form within an entirely different superfamily such as an orthid. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



275 



De Blainville omitted to mention any locality or geological horizon for Strophomena or 
S. rugosa. 

5. King (1846, p. 28) named the family strophomenidae to include Strophomena 
and related genera and it is this work which forms the basis of the key position that 
Strophomena and the strophomenids occupy today. This position was reinforced by the 
substantial monograph of Davidson (1853, 1871) who attributed many species to the 
genus. However, several nineteenth century authors agonised about the true identity of 
the genus and in particular the species rugosa. 

6. Hall & Clarke ( 1 892, p. 246), referring to Strophomena rugosa, wrote 'there seems 
to be sufficient reason to believe that it is the same species which was subsequently 
described as Leptaena pIanumbona\ This species, named by Hall (1847, p. 112), is 
a well-founded and properly described brachiopod from the Ordovician Trenton 
Limestone of Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky. 

7. Subsequent authors have tended to follow Hall & Clarke in using planumbona to 
define their concept of Strophomena. Nickles (1903, p. 215) did not accept that de 
Blainville's description or figures justified Hall & Clarke's synonymy with Leptaena 
planumbona. Nevertheless, he accepted Hall & Clarke's solution to the problem, writing 
that 'the wisest solution of the difficulties and the one that observes the real intent, if not 
the exact letter of the law of priority is to recognize . . . the genus Strophomena . . . with the 
Strophomena planumbona (Hall) as its type' . In the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, 
Williams ( 1 965, p. H384) gave the type species of Strophomena as '5. rugosa (?conspecific 
with Leptaena planumbona Hall, 1847)'. Pope (1976, p. 154) wrote that 'authors sub- 
sequent to Nickles ... also based Strophomena upon S. planumbona (Hall)' and 'the type 
should be fixed as Strophomena planumbona (Hall) by appeal to the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature so that no uncertainty continues'. 

8. Recent systematic papers (e.g. Cocks, 1978, p. 107; Rice, 1987, p. 157) correctly 
cite the nominal species Strophomena rugosa as the type species of Strophomena, it 
being the only originally included species. However, the name Strophomena rugosa has 
not been used in anything other than a formal sense since de Blainville (1825) and its 
true identity is uncertain. Since Leptaena planumbona Hall, 1847 is currently used as a 
valid name for the type species of Strophomena, stability would be achieved by 
designation of L. planumbona as the type species of Strophomena. 

9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

( 1 ) to use its plenary powers: 

(a) to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus 
Strophomena de Blainville, 1 825 and to designate Leptaena planumbona Hall, 
1847 as the type species; 

(b) to suppress the specific name rugosa de Blainville, 1825, as published in the 
binomen Strophomena rugosa, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority 
but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Strophomena 
de Blainville, 1825 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (l)(a) above 
Leptaena planumbona Hall, 1847; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name planumbona 
Hall, 1847, as published in the binomen Leptaena planumbona (specific name of 
the type species of Srro/j/zomena de Blainville, 1 825); - 



276 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology 
the name rugosa de Blainville, 1825, as pubHshed in the binomen Strophomena 
rugosa, and as suppressed in (l)(b) above. 

References 

Blainville, H.M.D. de. 1 825. Manuel de Malacologie el de Conchyliologie. 664 pp. Levrault, Paris. 
Cocks, L.R.M. 1978. A review of British Lower Palaeozoic brachiopods, including a synoptic 

revision of Davidson's Monograph. Palaeontographical Society (Monograph), 1-256. 
Davidson, T. 1853. British Fossil Brachiopoda. Palaeontographical Society (Monograph), 1 

(Introduction): 1-136. 

Davidson, T. 1871. British Fossil Brachiopoda. Palaeontographical Society (Monograph), 3(7): 
249-397. 

Defrance, J.L.M. 1824. Tableau des Corps Organises Fossiles. xvi, 136 pp. Levrault, Paris. 
Hall, J. 1847. Palaeontology of New York. Volume 1, containing descriptions of the organic 

remains of the lower division of the New York System. Natural History of New York, 1-338. 
Hall, J. & Clarke, J.M. 1892. An introduction to the study of the genera of Palaeozoic 

Brachiopoda, vol. 8, part 1. 367 pp. Geological Survey of the State of New York, Albany, 

N.Y. 

King, W. 1846. Remarks on certain genera belonging to the class Palliobranchiata. Annals and 

Magazine of Natural History, 18: 26-42, 83-94. 
Nickles, J.M. 1903. The Richmond group in Ohio and Indiana and its subdivisions, with a note 

on the genus Strophomena and its type. American Geologist, 32: 202-218. 
Pope, J.K. 1976. Comparative morphology and shell histology of the Ordovician 

Strophomenacea (Brachiopoda). Palaeontographica Americana, 8(49): 129-213. 
Rafinesque, C.S. & Clifford, J.D. 1 820. Prodrome d'une monographic des Turbinolies fossiles du 

Kentucky. Annales Generales des Sciences Physiques, Brussels, 5: 231-235. 
Rice, W.F. 1987. The systematics and biostratigraphy of the Brachiopoda of the Decorah Shale 

at St. Paul, Minnesota. Report of Investigations, Minnesota Geological Survey, No. 35: 1 36- 

166. 

Williams, A. 1965. Strophomenidina. Pp. H362^12 in Moore R.C. (Ed.), Treatise on 
Invertebrate Paleontology, part H (Brachiopoda). Geological Society of America and 
University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas. 



Case 2703 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



277 



HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): 
proposed precedence over BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839 

Harro Hieronimus ; . - : >tv ;; • s 

P.O. Box 170243, D-5650 Solingen 1, Fed. Rep. Germany 

Abstract. The purpose of this appHcation is to give precedence to the commonly used 
family-group name for the flat loaches homalopteridae Bleeker, 1859 over the unused 
senior synonym BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839. . . • ; ■ V 



1. In a study of Indian and Indochinese loaches of the genus Balitora Gray, 1830 
Kottelat (1988) reported that although interrelationships among members of the 
family homalopteridae have been variously interpreted, its type genus Homaloptera 
van Hasselt in Temminck, 1823 has always been considered closely related to Balitora 
Gray, 1830 and placed in the same family, subfamily and tribe. Thus his rediscovery of 
the hitherto overlooked family-group name balitorinae Swainson, 1839 (p. 190) 
means the family-group name homalopteridae Bleeker, 1859 (p. xxviii) is a junior 
subjective synonym of balitoridae Swainson, 1839. In accordance with Article 23 of 
the Code, I am referring this case to the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature together with a proposal to preserve nomenclatural stability. 

2. The family-group name homalopteridae Bleeker, 1 859 has been widely accepted 
by zoologists. All recent publications use this name (e.g. Hora, 1920; Hora, 193 1 ; Hora, 
1932; Hora, 1941; Silas, 1953; Jayaram, 1981). The family-group name balitoridae 
has not been used for any of the homalopterid fishes since Swainson estabhshed it 
(1839) until Kottelat (1988) nearly 1 50 years later. 

3. Kottelat (1988, p. 489) himself admits that the replacement of homalopteridae 
by balitoridae creates additional confusion in the suborder Cobitoidei. I cannot 
follow Kottelat in his opinion that an immediate introduction of the family-group 
name balitoridae, which had been overlooked for about 150 years, would help to 
create a stable nomenclature (Kottelat, 1988, p. 489). 

4. Kottelat (1988, p. 489) expects changes in systematics and nomenclature in the 
suborder Cobitoidei. Under these circumstances all possible attempts have to be made 
to stabilize nomenclature. 

5. In 1986 Kottelat (BZN 43: 360-362) proposed the designation of Cobitis taenia 
Linnaeus, 1758 as type species of the genus Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758. He referred (p. 361) 
to the fact that otherwise the family homalopteridae would become a subfamily of 
cobitidae. In Opinion 1500 (June, 1988) the Commission used its plenary powers to 
designate Cobitis taenia as type species of Cobitis Linnaeus, 1 758 and thus stabilized the 
family-group name homalopteridae Bleeker, 1859. However, the name remains 
threatened by the discovery of the unused senior synonym balitoridae. 

6. The type genus of homalopteridae Bleeker, 1859 is Homaloptera van Hasselt in 
Temminck, 1 823 (p. 133), the type species of which is H. ocellata van der Hoeven, 1 833 



278 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



by subsequent monotypy. Homaloptera is available by description but the two species 
originally included in it (H. fasciata van Hasselt in Temminck, 1823 and H. javanica 
van Hasselt in Temminck, 1823) are both nomina nuda. On p. 132 of van Hasselt's 
work, Homaloptera is spelt Homalophra. Kottelat (1987) acted as first reviser and 
selected the commonly used spelling Homaloptera. The specific name ocellata van der 
Hoeven, 1833 is a nomen nudum in the book Handboek der Dierkunde ... (1833a), the 
description given on p. 21 1 referring to the genus only. However, in the accompanying 
atlas (1833b) Verzameling der Platen (to which no mention is made in the Handboek, 
although it is referred to in the translation from the 2nd Dutch edition, 1 856-1 858), p. 8 
(Verklaring der platen) states that pi. 13 fig. 12 is 'Homaloptera ocellata v. Hass; eene 
nieuwe, vroeger nog niet afgebeelde, soort uit Java. Fig. 12b. Kop van dezen visch, van 
boven gezien. ( 1 1 . bl. 21 1 )'. Plate 13, figure 1 2 depicts a whole fish, fig. 1 2b the head of a 
fish, so the name is available. The type genus of balitoridae Swainson, 1 839 is Balitora 
Gray, 1830 (pi. 88). The type species of this genus is Balitora brucei Gray, 1830 (pi. 88) 
by subsequent designation by Jordan (1919, p. 178). 

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to give precedence to the family-group name 
HOMALOPTERiDAE Bleckcr, 1859 over the family-group name balitoridae 
Swainson, 1839; 

(2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Balitora Gray, 1830 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent desig- 
nation by Jordan (1919) Balitora brucei Gray, 1830 (type genus of 
BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839); 

(b) Homaloptera van Hasselt in Temminck, 1 823 (gender: feminine), type species 
by subsequent monotypy Homaloptera ocellata van der Hoeven, 1833 (type 
genus of HOMALOPTERIDAE Blccker, 1859); 

(3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) brucei Gray, 1830, as published in the binomen Balitora brucei (specific name 
of the type species of Balitora Gray, 1830); 

(b) ocellata van der Hoeven, 1833, as published in the binomen Homaloptera 
ocellata (specific name of the type species of Homaloptera van Hasselt in 
Temminck, 1823); 

(4) to place the following names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in 
Zoology: 

(a) HOMALOPTERIDAE Blecker, 1859 (type genus Homaloptera van Hasselt in 
Temminck, 1823) with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over 
BALITORIDAE Swainsou, 1839 (type genus Balitora Gray, 1830); 

(b) BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839 (type genus Balitora Gray, 1830) with the 
endorsement that it is not to be given priority over homalopteridae Bleeker, 
1859 (type genus Homaloptera van Hasselt in Temminck, 1823). 

References 

Bleeker, P. 1 859. Enumeratio specierum piscium hucusque in Archipelago indico observatarum, 
adjectis habitationibus citationibusque ubi descriptiones earum recentiores reperiuntur, nec 
con speciebus Musei Bleekeriani Bengalensibus, Japonicis, Capensibus Tasmanicisque. 
Acta Societatis Scientiarum Indo-Neerlandicae, 6: xxxvi, 1-276. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



279 



Gray, J.E. 1830-1835. Illustrations of Indian zoology, chiefly selected from the collection of 
General Hardwicke. 2 vols., 200 pis. (part fishes on pp. 1-255). Longman, Brown, Green & 
Longman, London. 

Hasselt, J.C. van. 1823. In Temminck, C.J. Uittreksel uit een' brief van den Heer J.C. van 
Hasselt, aan den Heer C.J. Temminck, geschreven uit Tjecande, Residentie Bantam, den 
29sten December 1822. Algemeene Konst- en Letter-Bode, 2(35): 130-133. 

Hoeven, J. van der. 1 833a. Handboek der Dierkimde of grondbeginsels der natuwiijke geschiedenis 
van het dierenrijk, vol. 2. x, v, 698 pp. Sulpke, Amsterdam. 

Hoeven, J. van der. 1833b. Verzameling der Platen, behoorende tot het Handboek der Dierkunde. 
12 pp, 20 pis. Sulpke, Amsterdam. 

Hora, S.L. 1920. Revision of the Indian Homalopteridae and of the genus Psilorhynchus 
(Cyprinidae). Records of the Indian Museum, 22(2): 195-215. 

Hora, S.L. 193 1 . Classification of the homalopterid fishes. Records of the Indian Museum, 33( 1 ): 
67-69. 

Hora, S.L. 1932. Classification, bionomics and evolution of homalopterid fishes. Memoirs of 

the Indian Museum, 12(2): 263-330. 
Hora, S.L. 1941. Homalopterid fishes from peninsular India. Records of the Indicm Museum, 

43(2): 221-232. 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1988. Opinion 1500. Cobitis Linnaeus, 
1758 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): Cobitis taenia Linnaeus, 1758 designated as the type 
species, and the original spelHng of the family-group name cobitidae Swainson, 1839 
confirmed. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 45(2): 178-179. 

Jayaram, K.C. 1 98 1 . The freshwater fishes of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma and Sri Lanka — 
a handbook, xx + 475 pp. Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta. 

Jordan, D.S. 1919. The Genera of Fishes. Part 2. From Agassi: to Bleeker, 1833-1858, twenty-six 
years, with the accepted type of each. Pp. i-ix, 163-284, i-xiii. Stanford University. 

Kottelat, M. 1987. Nomenclatural Status of the Fish Names Created by J.C. van Hasselt (1823) 
and of some Cobitoid Genera. Japanese Journal of Ichthyology, 33(4): 368-375. 

Kottelat, M. 1986. Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): Proposed desig- 
nation of Cobitis taenia Linnaeus, 1758 as type species and request for a ruling on the stem of 
the family-group name cobitididae Swainson, 1839. S.2566. Bulletin of Zoological 
Nomenclature, 43(4): 360-362. 

Kottelat, M. 1988. Indian and Indochinese species of Balitora (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes) 
with descriptions of two new species and comments on the family-group names balitoridae 
and homalopteridae. Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 95(2): 487-504. 

Silas, E.G. 1953. Classification, zoogeography and evolution of the fishes of the cyprinoid 
families homalopteridae and gastromyzonidae. Records of the Indian Museum, 50(2): 
173-264. 

Swainson, W. 1839. On the natural history and classification of fishes, amphibians and reptiles. 
In Lardner, D. (Ed.), The Cabinet Cyclopedia, vol. 2. 448 pp. Longman, Orme, Brown, 
Greene & Longmans, and Taylor, London. 



280 

Case 2715 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed 
fixation of masculine gender for ttie name 

David A. Etnier 

Department of Zoology , University of Tennessee , Knoxville, Tennessee 
37996-0810, U.S.A. 

Melvin L. Warren Jr. 

Department of Zoology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois 
62901-6501, U.S.A. 

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to fix as mascuhne the gender of Lepomis 
Rafinesque, 1819, for a genus of fish, including important food, game and laboratory 
research species. This is in accordance with Rafinesque's original intention and almost 
universal usage until 1988 when the gender was amended to feminine on etymological 
grounds with which the authors disagree. 



1 . In 1 8 1 9 Rafinesque (p. 420) established the generic name Lepomis and designated 
Labrus auritus Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 283) as the type species; he established two new 
species which he called Lepomis cyanellus and L. macrochirus. Although he did not 
state that the gender of Lepomis was masculine, it is clear from the ending of the three 
specific names that this was his intention. 

2. Rafinesque did not specify the derivation of Lepomis, but this can be inferred 
from his two subgenera, Pomotis and Apomotis. He characterized Pomotis as having 
'opercule auricule' (an ear on the opercle) and Apomotis as 'opercule sans auricle'. Since 
Pomotis and Apomotis both use the Greek poma (n., a lid or cover) to mean the 
operculum or gill cover, we conclude that the ending of Lepomis stems from the same 
Greek root. That this interpretation is correct is confirmed in that Rafinesque charac- 
terized Lepomis as having 'tete et opercules ecailleux' (head and opercles scaled). 
Furthermore, in a paper the following year, Rafinesque (1820, p. 30) stated that 'the 
name means scaly gills'. Jordan & Gilbert (1877, p. 102) also considered Lepomis to be 
derived from lepis plus poma. 

3. Lepomis has almost universally been treated as masculine as in Rafinesque's 1819 
paper. A notable early exception was Rafinesque himself who, in his 1820 paper, 
treated Lepomis as feminine as indicated by his use of the specific names pallida, 
trifasciata, salmonea and notata. More recently. Bailey & Robins (1988, p. 100) pointed 
out that Brown (1954, pp. 332, 683) considered the name to be derived from the Greek 
lepis (f., scale) and omis (f., a fish); in this Brown was not consistent since he gave as an 
example Lepomis auritus with a masculine ending. Bailey & Robins accepted Brown's 
derivation and treated Lepomis as feminine, 'correcting' a number of specific names to 
Lepomis aurita, L. cyanella, L. gibbosa, etc. They added that all these names were 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



281 



incorrectly assigned masculine endings in the 1980 and earlier editions of the American 
Fisheries Society's List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United 
States and Canada (Robins et al., 1980). 

4. We do not accept Bailey & Robins' argument that Lepomis should be treated as 
feminine on account of the etymology suggested by Brown (1954) and have sought the 
views of Professor H.D. Cameron (Professor of Greek and Latin, Adjunct Curator in 
the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan). In a letter (29 January 1990) to the 
Executive Secretary of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 
Professor Cameron wrote: 

'It is perfectly clear that Lepomis is not a properly formed Greek compound, no 
matter what Rafinesque thought he was doing. The rules of Greek noun formation 
would not permit such an invention. Rafinesque, by his inattention to philo- 
logical nicety, created a problem which cannot be solved by appeal to etymology or 
grammar. I am convinced that they [the authors of this application] have rightly 
construed what Rafinesque thought he was doing, but still his result is grammatically 
unacceptable. It is for this reason that... I have come round to the opinion that the 
name must be legally considered an arbitrary combination of letters, and the gender 
determined by the original author'. 
Professor Cameron added that, since Lepomis ended with the feminine suffix -omis, 
it could be argued under Article 30b of the Code that the name should be treated 
as feminine irrespective of Rafinesque's original intentions on etymology and 
gender. 

5. We consider that, irrespective of the derivation of the name Lepomis and since it is 
'almost universally regarded as masculine' (Bailey & Robins, 1988, p. 100) in accord- 
ance with Rafinesque's original intention, it would be in the interests of stability for it to 
be ruled by the Commission as masculine. 

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the gender of Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819 is 
masculine; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Lepomis 
Rafinesque, 1819 (gender: masculine, as ruled in (1) above), type species by 
original designation Labrus auritus Linnaeus, 1758; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name auritus 
Linnaeus, 1 758, as published in the binomen Labrus auritus (specific name of the 
type species of Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819). 

Acknowledgements 

We thank Reeve M. Bailey and Howard D. Cameron, University of Michigan; 
Brooks M. Burr, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale; C. Richard Robins, 
University of Miami; and James E. Shelton, University of Tennessee for their views on 
the derivation and gender of Lepomis and comments on an earlier draft of this petition. 
William E. Eschmeyer, California Academy of Sciences; Larry M. Page, Illinois 
Natural History Survey; and Reeve M. Bailey provided copies of papers unavailable 
to us. Thanks also to the many North American ichthyologists who expressed interest 
in the timely resolution of this matter by indicating their feelings on the gender of 
Lepomis. 



282 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



References 

Bailey, R.M. & Robins, C.R. 1988. Changes in North American fish names, especially as related 

to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 1985. Bulletin of Zoological 

Nomenclature, 45: 92-103. 
Brown, R.W. 1954. Composition of Scientific Words. 882 pp. Privately published, Baltimore. 
Jordan, D.S. & Gilbert, C.H. 1877. On the genera of North American fresh-water fishes. 

Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 1877, 83-104. 
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 
Rafinesque, C.S. 1819. Prodrome de 70 nouveaux genres d'animaux decouverts dans I'interieur 

des Etats-Unis d'Amerique, durant I'annee 1818. Journal de Physique, de Chimie, d'Hisfoire 

Naturelle et des Arts, Paris, 88: 417^29. 
Rafinesque, C.S. 1820. Ichthyologia Ohiensis, or Natural History of the Fishes Inhabiting the 

River Ohio and its Tributary Streams. 90 pp. Lexington, Kentucky. 
Robins, C.R., Bailey, R.M., Bond, C.E., Brooker, J.R., Lachner, E.A., Lea, R.N. & Scott, W.B. 

1980. A hst of common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada, 

Ed. 4. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 12. 174 pp. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



283 



Case2141 - , ^ . - 

Rana sphenocephala Cope, 1886 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed 
precedence over Rana utricular ius Harlan, 1826 

Lauren E. Brown ' , - ; ; , 

Depart men I of Biological Sciences, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois 
6 176 1-6901, U.S. A. 

Hobart M. Smith -' ' ' ■ ; - ' , : 

University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0334, U.S.A. 

Richard S. Funk 

College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 
37901-1071, U.S.A. 

Abstract. Conservation of the name Rana sphenocephala Cope, 1886 for a common 
American leopard frog by suppression of R. utricidarius Harlan, 1826 was proposed 
in 1 977. The latter name was essentially unused because it was considered a synonym of 
R. pipiens Schreber, 1782, but it was revived in 1974 as a supposed senior synonym of 
R. sphenocephala. Objections on taxonomic grounds to the proposed suppression of R. 
utricidarius prevented completion of this case; it is now proposed that R. sphenocephala 
be given precedence over /?. i//n'f 



1. In 1977 we published an application (BZN 33: 195-203) for the conservation of 
the species-group name sphenocephala Cope, 1886 (p. 517). As was stated in that 
application. Cope's name (usually cited as from Cope, 1889) has been extensively used 
for a century, either as Rana sphenocephala or as R. pipiens sphenocephala, for a leopard 
frog from the south-eastern United States; it was first pubHshed (as R. halecina spheno- 
cephala) to replace R. oxyrhynchus Hallowell, [1856] (p. 142), which is a junior primary 
homonym of the name of an African frog, R. oxyrhynchus Smith, 1849. 

2. R. oxyrhynchus Hallowell, [1856] was published for a leopard frog from Florida. 
A more northerly distributed taxon is R. pipiens Schreber, 1782, of which R. halecina 
Daudin, 1802 is a junior subjective synonym. As discussed in the original application, 
and in the references cited there and below, pipiens and sphenocephala are taxonomi- 
cally distinct within the 'R. pipiens complex'. Frogs of this group are very widely studied 
for a variety of purposes. 

3. In 1826 Harlan (p. 60) described R. utricularius from Pennsylvania and New 
Jersey, but, as we discussed previously, this did not become the accepted name for any 
taxon because of the seniority of pipiens or halecina, and it had been unused for very 
many years before being resurrected by Pace (1974). Pace used the spelling 'utricularia\ 
but utricularius is a noun meaning 'bagpiper'. In adopting the name. Pace considered 
that Harlan had differentiated his utricularius from halecina (= pipiens) in ways which 



284 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



showed that utricularius was a senior synonym of sphenocephala, but we have given 
reasons (BZN 33: 197-198) for disputing this synonymy and for considering that 
utricularius corresponded to pipiens. Pace (1974) went further, and proposed two sub- 
species, R. utricularia utricularia and R. u. sphenocephala (the latter considered to be 
restricted to peninsular Florida), but her basis for this was mistaken (BZN 33: 199- 
200). She designated a specimen from Philadelphia and one from Volusia County, 
Florida as neotypes of u. utricularia and u. sphenocephala respectively. 

4. In our original application we proposed the suppression of the name R. virescens. 
in addition to that of R. utricularius. As mentioned in paras. 2 and 10 of that appli- 
cation, virescens was not made available until Cope, 1889 (p. 397), although Cope 
assumed that it was available from earlier authors. Since virescens is junior to spheno- 
cephala and utricularius, has been used only once in the last 50 years and Cope's concept 
of the species was composite (including pipiens, sphenocephala and perhaps other frogs; 
BZN 33: 200), we do not now propose any formal action concerning it. 

5. Our proposal to conserve sphenocephala by suppressing utricularius received sup- 
port from 18 zoologists (BZN 34: 199-200). However eight authors (BZN 39: 80-84) 
objected to the suppression of utricularius, on the grounds that this name had acquired 
some usage since Pace (1974) and that the extent of speciation within the pipiens 
complex' was not fully worked out. With a reply (BZN 39: 84-90), we noted that the 
Commission Secretariat had been given a list of 103 references using sphenocephala 
from the 50 years before Pace's action. We also provided 46 similar references from the 
following seven years, during which time utricularius had been httle used. While agree- 
ing that the taxonomy of the leopard frogs needed further studies we reiterated (BZN 
39: 89) that the replacement of sphenocephala by utricularius had been in error, and was 
destabilizing and contrary to the Code. 

6. Because the Commission cannot form taxonomic judgements and objection had 
been made to the suppression of utricularius this case has remained unresolved, with 
consequent risk to stability. In correspondence the Executive Secretary has suggested 
that sphenocephala Cope, 1886 could be given precedence over utricularius Harlan, 
1826 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms. We beHeve that this 
course will maintain stability. 

7 . We have given the Commission Secretariat a (non-exhaustive) Hst of 11 works since 
1982 which have used sphenocephala. These include: Frost (1985), Amphibian Species of 
the World; the major work by Duellman & Trueb (1986), Biology of Amphibians; and 
Ashton & Ashton's 1988 handbook on the amphibians of Florida. Many journal papers 
have also used sphenocephala. In contrast very few papers have used utricularius: three 
which do, none of them taxonomic or with an implication that there is more than one 
southern leopard frog, are Mushinsky (1985), Alford (1986) and Wilbur & Semlitsch 
(1990). The recent check list of Collins (1990) has unfortunately followed Pace (1974) in 
giving (on p. 13) both R. utricularia utricularia and R. u. sphenocephala. 

8. For the reasons set out above and those previously pubHshed in the Bulletin, we 
now withdraw our previous proposals (BZN 33: 201) and instead ask the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the name sphenocephala Cope, 1886, as 
published in the trinomen Rana halecina sphenocephala, is to be given precedence 
over the name utricularius Harlan, 1826, as pubUshed in the binomen Rana 
utricularius, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



285 



(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: 

(a) sphenocephala Cope, 1886, as published in the trinomen Rana halecina 
sphenocephala, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over 
the name utricularius Harlan, 1826, as published in the binomen Rana 
utricularius, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; 

(b) utricularius Harlan, 1826, as published in the binomen Rana utricularius, 
with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name 
sphenocephala Cope, 1886, as published in the trinomen Rana halecina 
sphenocephala, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms. 

References ' ; ' 

(See also BZN 33: 195-203; 34: 199-200; 39: 80-90; and references therein). 

Alford, R.A. 1986. Habitat use and positional behavior of anuran larvae in a northern Florida 

temporary pond. Copeia, 1986(2): 408-423. 
Ashton, R.E. & Ashton, P.S. 1988. Handbook of Reptiles and Amphibians of Florida, part 3 (The 

Amphibians). 191 pp. Windward Publishing, Miami. 
Collins, J.T. 1990. Standard common and current scientific names for North American amphibians 

and reptiles, Ed. 3. Herpetological Circular no. 19, Society for the Study of Amphibians and 

Reptiles, iv, 41 pp. Oxford, Ohio. 
Cope, E.D. 1886. Synonymic list of the North American species of Bufo and Rana, with de- 
scriptions of some new species of Batrachia, from specimens in the National Museum. 

Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 23: 514—526. 
Cope, E.D. 1889. The Batrachia of North America. Bulletin of the U.S. National Museum. 34: 

1-525. 

Duellman, W.E. & Trueb, T. 1986. Biology of Amphibians. 670 pp. McGraw-Hill, New York. 
Frost, D.R. 1985. Amphibian Species of the World. 732 pp. Allen Press and the Association of 

Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas. 
Hallowell, E. 1856. [No title]. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 8: 

141-143. 

Harlan, R. 1826. Descriptions of several new species of batracian reptiles, with observations on 

the larvae of frogs. American Journal of Science and Arts, (1)10: 53-64. 
Mushinsky, H.R. 1985. Fire and the Florida sandhill herpetofaunal community: with special 

attention to responses of Cnemidophorus sexlineatus. Herpetologia, 41: 333-342. 
Pace, A.E. 1 974. Systematic and biological studies of the leopard frogs {Rana pipiens complex) of 

the United States. Miscellaneous Publications, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 

no. 148. 140 pp. 

Wilbur, H.M. & Semiitsch, R.D. 1990. Ecological consequences of tail injury in Rana tadpoles. 
Copeia, 1990(1): 18-24. 

[A comment on this application appears in BZN 47: 298-299]. 



286 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



Comment on the proposed placement of HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca, 
Gastropoda) on the Official List of Family-Group Names 

(Case 2699; see BZN 47: 104^109) 

Alfred F. Newton, Jr. & Margaret K. Thayer 

Department of Zoology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois 60605, 
U.S.A. 

One of the proposals in this application (BZN 47: 107, para. 13 (4)) is to place the 
family-group name hydrobiidae Troschel, 1857 (type genus Hydrobia Hartmann, 
1821) on the Official List of Family-Group Names. However, this name is a junior 
homonym of hydrobiidae Mulsant, 1844 (type genus Hydrobius Leach, 1815), a name 
in current use for a subfamily or tribe of hydrophilidae (Insecta: Coleoptera). 

The name in Coleoptera was first proposed in French form as a 'branche' 
HYDROBIAIRES (Mulsant, 1844, p. 1 16), which was further divided into two 'rameaux', 
includingHYDROBiATES(Mulsant, 1844,p. 1 17). The name was used again in French form 
as the tribe hydrobiides by Lacordaire (1 854, p. 454). It was apparently first latinized as 
HYDROBii by Fairmaire & Laboulbene (1 855, p. 227). Since then, the name has come into 
general use for a large group of hydrophilidae, treated as either a tribe hydrobiini of 
the subfamily hydrophilinae or a separate subfamily hydrobiinae; in both cases, 
subgroups are often recognized that include a subtribe hydrobiina or tribe hydrobiini, 
respectively. The family-group name has generally (but not universally) been attributed 
to Mulsant (1844), hence is available from that date (Article 1 lf(iii) of the Code). 

Some representative monographs or general works showing usage of hydrobiinae, 
hydrobiini and/or hydrobiina as valid groups include LeConte (1861), Horn (1873), 
Bedel (1881), Kuwert (1890), Ganglbauer (1904), Reitter (1909), Knisch (1924), 
Orchymont (1942), Blackwelder (1944), Brues et al. (1954), Crowson (1955), Arnett 
(1963, 1985) and Hansen (1987). At the highest recently-used rank, hydrobiinae in- 
cludes about 30 genera and over 700 described species, or about a third of the family 
hydrophilidae (Hansen, 1987). At this level, several alternative (but junior) family- 
group names based on included genera are available. At the lowest rank, however, the 
nominotypical subgroup (tribe or subtribe) has no available alternative family-group 
names (Hansen, 1990). 

The Code (Article 55b) requires that cases of homonymy in family-group names 
resulting from type genera with similar (but not identical) names must be referred to the 
Commission for a ruling to either: (a) observe priority and replace the junior homonym 
(in this case, the gastropod hydrobiidae Troschel, 1857), or (b) amend the stem of one 
of the generic names involved to remove the homonymy. Since we are not familiar 
with available junior synonyms or other potential solutions concerning the use of 
hydrobiidae in Mollusca we refrain from making any specific proposal here, and refer 
this problem to malacologists for further action. 

Until a specific proposal dealing with this homonymy is submitted to the Commis- 
sion and a ruhng made, we feel that hydrobiidae Troschel, 1857 should not be placed 
on the Official List as proposed on BZN 47: 107. 

The status of hydrobiidae Troschel is not directly relevant to resolving the main 
problems addressed in Case 2699. The present comment illustrates a difficulty that may 
arise in applications designed to address other problems. 



Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 ^. 287 
Additional References > ^ i - ; \ . 

Arnett, R.H., Jr. 1963. The beetles of the United States. A manual for identification, xi, 1112 pp. 

Catholic University Press, Washington. 
Arnett, R.H., Jr. 1985. American insects. A handbook of the insects of America north of Mexico. 

xiv, 850 pp. Flora and Fauna Publications, Gainesville. 
Bedel, L. 1881. Faune des Coleopteres du bassin de la Seine. Annales de la Societe Entomologique 

de France, Volume hors serie: 359 pp., 1 pi. 
Blackwelder, R.E. 1944. Checkhst of the Coleopterous insects of Mexico, Central America, the 

West Indies, and South America. Part I. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, No. 

185, xii, 188 pp. 

Brues, C.T., Melander, A.L. & Carpenter, F.M. 1954. Classification of insects. Bulletin of the 

Museum of Comparative Zoology, no. 108. v, 917 pp. 
Crowson, R.A. 1955. The natural classification of the families of Coleoptera. 187 pp. Nathaniel 

Lloyd, London. 

Fairmaire, L. & Laboulbene, J. J. A. 1855. Faune entomologique fran^aise ou description des 
insectes qui se irouvent en France: Coleopteres, Vol. 1, Part 2 (pp. 181-370). Deyrolle, Paris. 

Ganglbauer, L. 1904. Die Kafer von Mitteleuropa. Die Kdfer der osterreichisch-ungarischen 
Monarchic, Deutschkmds, der Schweiz, sowie des franzdsischen und italienischen Alpenge- 
bietes. Vol. 4, Part 1. Dermestidae,... Georyssidae, Dryopidae, Heteroceridae, Hydrophilidae. 
286 pp. Karl Ceroids Sohn, Vienna. 

Hansen, M. 1987. The Hydrophiloidea (Coleoptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. Fauna 
Entomologica Scandinavica, 18: 1-254. 

Hansen, M. 1990. Revision of the genera of Hydrophiloidea, with a revised suprageneric classifi- 
cation. 400 pp., 247 figs. Ph.D. thesis. Zoological Museum, Copenhagen. 

Horn, G.H. 1873. Revision of the genera and species of the tribe Hydrobiini. Proceedings of the 
American Philosophical Society, 13: 1 18-137. 

Knisch, A. 1924. Hydrophilidae. In Schenkling, S. (Ed.), Coleopterorum Catalogus, Pars 79. 306 
pp. W. Junk, Berlin. 

Kuwert, A. 1890 (1889). Bestimmungs-Tabelle der Hydrophiliden Europas, Westasiens und 
Nordafrikas. Verhandlimgen des Naturforschenden Vereines in Briinn, 28: 3-121. 

Lacordaire, J.T. 1854. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Genera des coleopteres. Vol. 2. 548 pp. 
Roret, Paris. 

Leach, W.E. 1815. Entomology. Pp. 57-172 in Brewster, D. (Ed.), Edinburgh Encyclopedia, vol. 
9(1). Edmburgh. 

LeConte, J.L. 1861. Classification of the Coleoptera of North America. Part 1. Smithsonian 

Miscellaneous Collections, vol. 3. xxv, 208 pp. 
Mulsant, E. 1844. Histoire naturelle des Coleopteres de France. Palpicornes. vii, 196 pp. Maison, 

Paris. 

Orchymont, A. d'. 1942. Contribution a Fetude de la tribu Hydrobiini Bedel specialement de sa 
sous-tribu Hydrobiae (Palpicornia-Hydrophilidae). Memoires du Musee Royal d'Histoire 
Naturelle de Belgique, (2) 24: 1-68. 

Reitter, E. 1909. Fauna Germanica. Die Kdfer des Deutschen Reiches. Vol. 2. 392 pp. Lutz, 
Stuttgart. 



288 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



Comments on the proposed conservation of Fryeria Gray, 1853 and F. rueppelii Bergh, 
1869 (MoUusca, Gastropoda) 

(Case 2682; see BZN 46: 161-164) 

(1) L.B. Holthuis 

Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands 

Gray (1853) did not use pustulosa as a new scientific name when establishing Fryeria 
(cf. BZN 46: 162, para. 4), but just referred it to Riippell. There is therefore no new 
species Fryeria pustulosa Gray, 1853; Article 49 of the Code applies in this case, and 
Bergh's (1869) proposal of the new name riippelii for Phyllidia pustulosa sensu Riippell 
non Cuvier is entirely in order. The Commission cannot suppress the non-existing 
name Fryeria pustulosa Gray, 1853, but it can designate F. rueppelii Bergh, 1 869 as type 
species of Fryeria. 

(2) Robert Burn 

3 Nantes Street, Newtown, Geelong, Victoria, Australia 3220 

While agreeing wholeheartedly with the proposed conservation of Fryeria Gray, 
1853, the following comment is necessary regarding the name of the type species. 
Brunckhorst et al. are correct in stating that the type species is, by deliberate use of 
misidentification (Article Hi), Fryeria pustulosa Gray, 1853. They are incorrect how- 
ever to claim that this name is an unused senior synonym of Fryeria riippelii Bergh, 
1869, a taxon of somewhat dubious nomenclatural validity and unstable subsequent 
spelling. Usages of F. pustulosa Gray, 1853 include: 

1. Martens' (1870, p. 56) summary of Bergh's monograph: 'Fryeria riippellii = 
Phyllidia pustulosa of Riippell, but not of Cuvier = Fr. pustulosa (Gray), Red Sea'. 
Martens indicated the authors of vahd names by bracket enclosure. 

2. Risbec (1929, pp. 45-49, figs. 1-9) identified and figured a specimen from 
Madagascar as 'Fryeria pustulosa Gray. Synonymes: Phyllidia pustulosa Ruppell. 
Fryeria Ruppellii Bergh'. It is also worth noting that Vayssiere (1912, p. 87) described 
two specimens from the Gulf of Aden which he identified as 'Fryeria pustulosa, 
Ruppell, 1828. Syn.: Fryeria ruppelli Bergh', a nearly but not quite correct nomencla- 
tural solution of the species name. Fischer (1883, p. 530) and Tryon (1883, p. 392) both 
listed the species as 'Fryeria pustulosa, Ruppell' without further synonymy. 

3. Risbec (1953, pp. 13-15, fig. 1) identified and figured a specimen from New 
Caledonia as 'Fryeria pustulosa Gray, 1853. (Syn.: Fryeria ruppelli Bergh)'. 

In view of the nomenclatural confusion attending the species name riippelii Bergh, 
1869, my opinion is that (1) priority should apply, and (ii) use of pustulosa Gray, 
1853 in the binomen Fryeria pustulosa will not cause any instability in opisthobranch 
gastropod literature, despite there being another species in the phyllidhdae with 
the same specific name, i.e. Phyllidia pustulosa Cuvier, 1804. It is therefore advo- 
cated that the application be amended to have Fryeria pustulosa Gray, 1853 con- 
firmed as the type species, by monotypy, of Fryeria Gray, 1853, to have both Fryeria 
Gray, 1853 and F. pustulosa Gray, 1853 placed on the respective Official Lists, and 
to have riippelii Bergh, 1869 and any subsequent incorrect spellings placed on the 
Official Index. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



289 



Additional references i 

Fischer, P. 1883. Manuel de Conchyliologie et de Paleontologie, fasc. 6: 513-608. 

Martens, E. von. 1870. Mollusca. Record of Zoological Literature, 6: 505-593. 

Risbec, J. 1929. Note zoologiques et anatomiques sur quelques opisthobranches de Madagascar. 

Faune des Colonies Frangaises, 3: 45-62. 
Risbec, J. 1953. MollusquesnudibranchesdelaNouvelle-Caledonie. Faune de I' Union Frangaise, 

15: 1-189. 

Tryon, G.W. 1883. Structural and Systematic Conchology: an introduction to the study of the 

Mollusca, vol. 2. 430 pp., 69 pis. 
Vayssiere, A. 1912. Recherches zoologiques et anatomiques sur les Opisthobranches de la Mer 

Rouge et du Golfe d'Aden, Part 2. Annates de la Faculte des Sciences de Marseille, 20 

(Suppl.): 5-157, pis. 1-11. , ... 

(3) D.J. Brunckhorst - ' \ 

Zoology Department, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland 4067 , Australia 

W.B.Rudman ' ' ' - .• 

Australian Museum, Sydney South, N.S.W. 2000, Australia ■ ; . . 

In response to the above comments of Holthuis and Burn we would like to summar- 
ise our case briefly. In this summary all spellings of Bergh's name have been corrected to 
^rueppelif to avoid confusion (see para. 9 of our application). 

Our case involves two distinct species of phyllidiidae. One species was named 
Phyllidia pustidosa by Cuvier (1804). The second species was misidentified as Phyllidia 
pustulosa Cuvier by Riippell & Leuckart (1830 or 1831). Gray (1853) considered this 
second species to belong to a distinct genus, which he named Fryeria. He mentioned 
P. pustulosa Cuvier and was doubtful of the synonymy of this and the 'P. pustulosa 
Riippeir on which he based Fryeria. Clearly under Article Hi (Deliberate use of a 
misidentification) and the appended Example the name of this second species is Fryeria 
pustulosa Gray, 1853, available because it is the type of a new nominal genus. 

Bergh ( 1 869) considered that having two related, though not congeneric, species with 
the same specific name would lead to continuing confusion. He proposed the new name 
Fryeria rueppelii to obviate the confusion. Although this name is unnecessary under the 
Code it has been used by most subsequent nudibranch taxonomists. Our submission 
asked the Commission to use its plenary powers to legalise this usage, since the recent 
proposal by Yonow (1986) of the generic name Reyfria clearly shows that confusion 
still surrounds the use of pustulosa for the two related species. 

Risbec (1953) was correct in using Fryeria pustulosa Gray for Riippell & Leuckart's 
species but it is noteworthy that he later changed his usage to Fryeria rueppelii Bergh 
when (Risbec, 1956) reporting both that species and Phyllidia pustulosa Cuvier from 
Vietnam. 

The Commission Secretariat has a list of 43 works which have dealt with Riippell & 
Leuckart's taxonomic species. Very few have used Fryeria pustulosa while the great 
majority have employed Bergh's replacement name Fryeria rueppelii (in various spell- 
ings), because it removes the confusion of using pustulosa for the two species. Burn, 
who now wishes to resurrect the name Fryeria pustulosa, has himself used the name 
Fryeria rueppelii Bergh, rather than the correct Fryeria pustulosa Gray, when reporting 
that species and P/zy///i//fl/JM.s?M/o5a Cuvier from Australia (Burn, 1975). - 



290 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



Burn gives two reasons for being opposed to our submission. First, he states there is 
'nomenclatural confusion attending the species name rueppellC. In our opinion there is 
no confusion in the use of the name Fryeria rueppelii Bergh, other than in speUing. 
Secondly, he states that use of 'pustulosa Gray will not cause instability'. As most 
authors have deliberately avoided this usage to prevent confusion. Burn's prediction is 
not well-founded. Paragraph 8 of our original submission (BZN 46: 162) shows that 
confusion has been caused by the misapplication of the names P. pustulosa Cuvier and 
F. pustulosa Gray. 

Despite the above comments by Holthuis and Burn we still feel that our interpret- 
ation of the Code and of the situation is correct. Our aim is to have Fryeria rueppelii 
Bergh, 1 869 (new name for Phyllidia pustulosa sensu Riippell & Leuckart non Cuvier, 
i.e. Fryeria pustulosa Gray, 1 853) designated as the type species of Fryeria. We would be 
happy for the Commission to reach this decision by any appropriate procedure. 

Additional references 

Burn, R. 1975. A list of dorid nudibranchs of Australia (Gastropoda, Opisthobranchia). 

In Thompson, T.E. Dorid nudibranchs from eastern Australia (Gastropoda, 

Opisthobranchia). Journal of Zoology, London, 176: 
Risbec, J. 1956. Nudibranches du Vietnam. Archives du Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 

Paris, 7(4): 1-34. 



Comment on the proposed precedence of Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 
(Crustacea, Isopoda) over Palaega Woodward, 1870 

(Case 2721; see BZN 47: 27-29, 212-213) 

(1) Rodney M. Feldmann 

Department of Geology, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44242, U.S.A. 

Palaega Woodward, 1870 was estabhshed as a genus of isopods nine years prior to 
the establishment of Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1 879. The name Palaega has been 
used repetitively throughout the period from 1 870 to the present and for this reason 
must be considered a valid name. The group is well known in paleontological literature 
and, for that reason alone, there is no substantive basis for sustaining the proposed 
exercise of the plenary powers of the Commission to have Bathynomus considered the 
name of precedence. 

Description of Palaega goedertorum Wieder & Feldmann, 1989 has established the 
synonymy of Palaega and Bathynomus with much greater certainty than had been 
possible previously, based upon preservation of the entire dorsal carapace. The 
morphological similarity of specimens referred to Palaega goedertorum, P. carteri 
Woodward (type species of the genus) and Bathynomus giganteus A. Milne Edwards 
(type species of Bathynomus) permits clear demonstration of the generic synonymy. 
Although Martin & Kuck (BZN 47: 27-29) point out that many isopod genera cannot 
be identified unequivocally by examination of the dorsal carapace their argument is not 
valid in this case. In point of fact, Palaega ( — Bathynomus) can be clearly distinguished 
from other isopod genera by the anatomy of the dorsal surface. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



291 



Martin & Kuck (their para. 2) correctly observe that some fossil forms have been 
wrongly assigned to Palaega. This was previously noted by Wieder & Feldmann ( 1989), 
who suggested removal of certain species from the genus. Nevertheless, improper 
assignment to a properly proposed and defined genus does not, and cannot, warrant 
even conditional suppression of its name. 

Martin & Kuck (para. 3) suggest that the synonymy of Palaega and Bathynomus is 
'unHkely to be followed by other workers'. Although some workers may exercise the 
subjective judgement that Paleaga and Bathynomus are not synonymous, those that 
do accept the synonymy have no recourse but to adopt the senior name. Wieder & 
Feldmann (1989) did not accept the priority of Palaega on any basis other than clear 
demonstration of subjective synonymy and application of the rules of priority. To do 
otherwise would clearly not be in the best interest of stability of nomenclature. 

The suggestion by Martin & Kuck (their para. 4) that giving Bathynomus precedence 
over Palaega would serve the interests of stabiUty and would avoid confusion is false. 
Palaega is as well known in paleontological literature as Bathynomus is in neontological 
literature. No criteria are defined in the Code for the conditional suppression of a senior 
subjective synonym other than the maintenance of a stable and universally acceptable 
nomenclature (Article 79). The only argument that would seem to apply in this case 
would be that names proposed for living organisms should be given precedence over 
those originally based on fossils. I argue that that concept must be rejected. 

Therefore, no substantive basis for exercise of the plenary powers to reject Palaega 
Woodward, 1870 in favor of Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 has been 
established, and I suggest that the proposals on BZN 47: 28 be denied. 

Editorial Note. The comments below are from members of the Nomenclature 
Committee of The Crustacean Society (Secretary: R.B. Manning, National Museum of 
Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) 

(2) GaryC.B. Poore - . . ' 

Division of Natural History, Museum of Victoria, 71 Victoria Crescent, Abbotsford, 
Victoria 3076, Australia 

Keiji Baba ■ • - ' 

Kumamoto University Faculty of Education, Kurokami 2-40-1, Kumamoto, 860 Japan 

Martin & Kuck have presented a well argued case for precedence of Bathynomus over 
Palaega. Doubt about the states of many characters of fossils will always remain no 
matter how well preserved they are and it follows that the synonymy of fossil taxa with 
modern forms can only be questionable. Authors who suggest otherwise express only a 
subjective opinion which is unHkely to receive support from the majority. We certainly 
do not support such a view and one of us (G.C.B.P.), in a work in progress with N.L. 
Bruce, will not accept the precedence of Palaega. This attitude is supported when one 
looks at the most recent diagnosis of Bathynomus (Bruce, 1986). Most of the characters 
diagnosing the genus are not discernible in many fossils. 

The proposal before the Commission should be unnecessary but we support it 
nevertheless. 



292 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



(3) J.Y. Liu 

Chinese Crustacean Society, Institute of Oceanology, Academia Sinica, 7 Nan-Hai 
Road, Quingdao, People's Republic of China 

Considering that (i) Bathynomus is a well known and clearly defined genus, whereas 
Palaega is a vague taxon based on incomplete fossils, and (ii) Bathynomus is a widely 
recognized name in deep-sea biology and is often included in popular accounts of 
Crustacea and of deep-sea life, and is the only name that has been used for these isopods 
since 1 879, 1 agree with Martin & Kuck's proposal to give precedence to Bathynomus 
over Palaega. 

(4) L.B. Holthuis 

Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands 

Comparing the description of the type species of Palaega, P. carteri, with 
Bathynomus giganteus it seems most unlikely that the two belong to the same genus. In 
the course of time many other fossil species have been added to Palaega; these species, 
usually known only from fragments, probably belong to various genera but some may 
indeed be Bathynomus. However, unless and until it is proved that Palaega carteri is a 
Bathynomus, the latter generic name has nothing to fear. 

Giving the name Bathynomus precedence over Palaega would do no harm and may 
set aside fears that eventually, if the two are synonymized, Bathynomus will disappear. 
Therefore, I am willing to support the application. 

(5) Thomas E. Bowman 

Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian 
Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. 

I do not see the need for the Commission to act on this apphcation. Wieder & 
Feldmann's Palaega goedertorum seems to be a Bathynomus because of the large size 
and coarsely toothed posterior margin of the pleotelson, but that does not make 
Palaega carteri, the type species of Palaega, also a Bathynomus. The pleotelson of 
P. carteri resembles those of species of Aega Leach, 1815 (especially A. dentata and 
A. gracilipes) rather than those of Bathynomus spp., and if Palaega and Bathynomus 
are kept separate for the time being there should be no cause for confusion nor need 
for the Commission to act. Wieder & Feldmann did not give persuasive arguments 
for combining these genera, and might better have simply placed their new species in 
Bathynomus. 

(6) Austin B. Williams 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Systematic Laboratory, National Museum of 
Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. 

I disagree with Martin & Kuck (BZN 47: 27, para. 2) that 'Palaega is of doubtful 
validity'. Palaega may be a 'form' genus, but it has a type species, P. carteri. 
Nevertheless, I agree with the applicants' stand that Bathynomus and Palaega are 
distinct entities. The question is, does the Commission need to use plenary powers to 
give precedence to Bathynomus over Palaegal 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



293 



This seems an ordinary case of synonymy. The Wieder & Feldmann material 
(P. goedertorum) can well be considered as a species of Bathynomus closely related to 
the extant B. giganteus. Palaega carteri and its allies can continue to be regarded 
as members of a 'form genus', admittedly somewhat nebulous because of their 
incompleteness. ■ - ■ ■ - 



Comments on the proposed conservation of Griffit hides Portlock, 1843 and BoUandia 
Reed, 1943 (Trilobita) 

(Case 2762; see BZN 47: 114^116,216) _ 

(1) BrianA. Engel 

The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, N.S.W. 2308, Australia 

I wish to record my strong endorsement for the conservation of the names Griffithides 
Portlock, 1843 and BoUandia Reed, 1943. Both trilobite names are entrenched in the 
relevant literature and, as outhned by Professor Hahn, adoption of a long neglected 
type designation for Griffithides would cause extensive and unacceptable confusion. 

(2) Carsten Brauckmann 

Wuppertal Fuhlrott-Museum, Auer Schulstrasse 20, 5600 Wuppertal 2, Fed. Rep. 
Germany ' r' x , ^ • - 

I completely agree with this application and trust that Griffithides and BoUandia will 
be conserved in their accustomed sense. 

(3) S.F.Morris 

The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. ' ' - 

Acceptance of Asaphus globiceps as the type species of Griffithides would be disas- 
trous. I have doubts as to whether Oldham made a vaHd type designation (see BZN 47: 
114, para. 2), but if he did then I support Hahn's application to conserve Griffithides 
longiceps as the type species. 



Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific names of Culex stigmatosoma 
Dyar, 1907 and C. r/rriam6«s Dyar, 1921 (Insecta, Diptera) . .. 

(Case 2702; see BZN 46: 247-249; 47: 2 1 5-2 1 6) 

(1) William K. Reisen ' 
Arbovirus Field Station, University of California, Bakersfield, California 933 12, U.S.A. 

The resurrection of Culex stigmatosoma and the rejection of C. peus as the scientific 
name for the 'banded foul-water mosquito' has been accepted by most culicidologists. 



294 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



who can readily understand that both names refer to the same species. However, 
transferring C. pens to replace C. thriambus would create endless problems for years 
to come, since the biology and arbovirus affinities of these two species differ markedly. 
In doing literature searches, one could never be sure which species the author was 
addressing, since name changes are often adopted only slowly. 

I urge the Commission to approve this application as rapidly as possible. 
As a mosquito ecologist, I need to know which name to use in my research papers, 
and as an Editor of the Journal of Medical Entomology I need direction in dealing with 
submitted manuscripts. Any delay will only enhance the chances of confusion in the 
hterature. 

(2) Richard Garcia 

Agricultural Experiment Station, 1050 San Pablo Avenue, Albany, California 94706, 
U.S.A. 

I strongly support this application to suppress the name Culex pens Speiser, 1904 in 
order to avoid massive confusion in the literature. 

(3) Lewis T. Nielsen 

American Mosquito Control Association Inc., 707 East Prien Lake Road, Lake Charles, 
Louisiana 70606-5416. U.S.A. 

As Editor of The American Mosquito Control Association's journal Mosquito 
Systematics, the only journal exclusively devoted to mosquito taxonomy and related 
disciplines, I am fully in support of the proposal that the names of the American species 
Culex stigmatosoma Dyar, 1907 and Culex thriambus Dyar, 1921 be stabilized and that 
the name Culex peus Speiser, 1904 be suppressed. 

The unfortunate misidentification of the type specimen of C. peus and the failure to 
recognize that it was conspecific with C. thriambus and not C. stigmatosoma has 
resulted in much confusion. There was a great reluctance among mosquito systematists 
to accept Stone's 1958 act of synonymizing C. stigmatosoma under C.peus (see BZN 46: 
248, para. 7(2)), especially since C. stigmatosoma had been accepted as a valid species 
for 51 years (1907-1958) and is the subject of a considerable body of hterature. 

Culex thriambus in turn has been accepted as a species of the southwestern United 
States, Mexico and Central America for 67 years (1921-1988). Correspondence with 
subscribers and authors of articles in Mosquito Systematics and other mosquito 
taxonomists indicates unanimous support of the recommendations of Eldridge 
& Harbach. 

(4) Bruce A. Harrison 

12215 Parkton Court, Ft. Washington. Maryland 20744, U.S.A. 

As a mosquito taxonomist I firmly believe in the use of names based on priority. 
However, on rare occasions priority impedes progress and should be overruled. This is 
certainly true in regard to this case. If C.peus is not suppressed, the literature regarding 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



295 



C. pens, C. stigmatosoma and C. thriambus will be confused for many years. Accord- 
ingly, I strongly urge the Commission to approve the proposals of Eldridge 
& Harbach. 

(5) R.A.Ward 

Department of Entomology , Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Washington, D.C. 
20307^5100, U.S.A. 

The 'banded foul-water mosquito' is of great economic and potential medical signifi- 
cance in the far western U.S.A., i.e. the states of California, Oregon and Washington, 
where it can be a serious biting pest of humans and a potential vector for arboviral 
diseases. With increasing urbanization, it is assuming greater importance. 

The American Mosquito Control Association is now using the name Culex 
stigmatosoma Dyar for the species as a matter of editorial policy in their Journal. Three 
papers have been printed since 1989 using the name C. stigmatosoma. Readers of the 
Journal, who are primarily concerned with research and control of mosquitoes, have 
readily accepted the name change. If a decision was made to reject this case there would 
be considerable confusion amongst applied entomologists. : . , 



Comments on the stability of fish family names 

(SeeBZN47: 97-100, 138) : ^ - ^'-V -" ■ 

(1) Maurice Kottelat 

Zoologische Staatssammlung , Miinchhausenstrasse 21, D-8000 MUnchen 60, Fed. Rep. 
Germany 

I endorse Wheeler's view that changes to spelling of family-group names for purely 
grammatical reasons have unfortunate and far-ranging implications for stability. I also 
support his call for a specialist committee on fish nomenclature. . , 

Perhaps for euphonic reasons (as is obvious to those whose mother tongue is a 
Romance language) authors of the last century preferred family names to end in -idae 
rather than -IDIDAE. 

(2) John E. Randall v 
Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A. 

I am in full agreement with Wheeler. The 'corrections' by Steyskal ( 1 980) on grounds 
of grammar have done a real disservice to ichthyology. As Wheeler has pointed out, 
some ichthyologists have followed these and others have not. I am with the latter 
group. In a book on 1 100 species offish of the Great Barrier Reef and the Coral Sea I 
am not using the emended names. I recommend that these all be rejected, rather than 
the Commission deal with them one by one, and that the names so long in consistent use 
be maintained. 



296 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



(3) Storrs L. Olson 

Department of Vertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian 
Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. 

In attempting to counter arguments (Steyskal, 1980) for using family-group names 
that are grammatically correct, Wheeler joins the ranks of those who perceive the threat 
of 'confusion' lurking behind every letter in a scientific name. Wheeler also maintains 
that the changes Steyskal proposed will render many names 'almost unpronouncable'. 
Yet most of the cases he discusses involve no more than the insertion of the syllable 'id', 
so that the resulting name would still be easily recognized by any intelligent person 
familiar with the previous spelling in the first place. Perhaps the 'fishery workers, 
environmental archaeologists, and ecologists', whose interests Wheeler seeks to 
protect, should be concerned by his implied condescension that even those of their 
number perceptive enough to notice such minor changes would not have the mental 
capability to avoid being confused by them. As far as pronunciation is concerned, 
although it can be argued that 'idid' is exactly twice as diflficult to pronounce as 'id', 
such iteration should not present an insurmountable obstacle to anyone not already in 
need of a speech therapist. 

Those who create nomenclature and are responsible for its proper use ought to have 
some knowledge of the basic Latin and Greek roots of scientific words and care about 
their preservation. With such knowledge one understands that grammatical precision 
actually prevents confusion, whereas grammatical lapses may create it. An excellent 
case in point is one of the instances mentioned by Wheeler, the incorrect name 
'ceratodidae' versus the correct ceratodontidae. The grammatically correct form is 
immediately recognizable as being derived from the Greek roots cerato- (horn) and 
-odous (tooth) whereas the incorrect form might be taken to be derived from the 
Latin cera (wax) and todus (a small bird). Distinguishing between these two possible 
etymologies, one of which is completely nonsensical, is not, in my opinion, a matter of 
'grammatical nicety'. 

Furthermore, there are among fishes, especially fossils, a host of genera ending in 
-odus that are the basis of family-group names that have been correctly formed with the 
ending -odontidae, e.g. Synodus, Pimelodus, Hemiodus, Helodus, Pristodus, Copodus, 
Cochliodus, Ptychodus, Onychodus, Psammodus, Chirodus, Pycnodus, etc. If Wheeler 
were heeded there would then be two sets of names based on the same root, one that is 
correctly formed and another (e.g. 'ceratodidae') that is not. The god Stability is 
unlikely to find a reUable servant in the demon Inconsistency. The advantages of clarity 
of meaning and consistency of usage that are conferred by precise grammar far out- 
weigh the unsubstantiated fear that legions of fisheries biologists will be overcome by 
confusion as a result of adherence to grammatical standards. 

Comments on the proposed confirmation of the spelling of LIP ARID A£ Gill, 1861 
(Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes) 

(Case 2440; see BZN 45: 130-131, 292; 46: 45^6; 47:97-100, 138) 



(1) H.D. Cameron 

Department of Classical Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, 
U.S.A. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



297 



The argument by Steyskal (1980) that the name liparidae Gill, 1861 is grammati- 
cally incorrect and should be replaced by liparididae is not well founded. It assumes 
that the stem of the generic name Liparis Scopoh, 1777 would be Liparid-, but that is 
incorrect. : ■ 

The word 'Liparis' first appears in the Greek geographical writer of the 3rd century 
B.C. Antigonus of Carystus, who states [my translation] 'Polycritus has written that the 
river Liparis in Soli was not falsely named, but that it so oils you that you have no need 
of further unguent'. Evidently it was considered that the name of the river was derived 
from liparos, 'shiny, oily, greasy' (cf. BZN 45: 1 30, para. 4). Antigonus used the word in 
the accusative case 'Liparim\ which shows that the word was a Greek i-stem noun and 
not a consonant-stem one. 

A fish name Liparis was an invention of the Renaissance editors of Pliny the Elder, 
who derived it from the river name. It was from a Hst of fishes in PHny that Rondelet 
(1554) took the name. He explains as follows [my translation]: 

T am unwilling, dear reader, to conceal from you so rare a fish, and so very worthy of 

notice. When I tried to preserve it, it dissolved into oil completely. This occurrence 

prompted me to name it a liparis [in the accusative liparim], which Pliny mentions, as 

if from liparos, that is, oily'. 

Antigonus of Carystus and Rondelet conclusively show that the stem of Liparis is 
Lipar- and not Liparid-. Unfortunately the Latin dictionary of Lewis & Short (1879) 
gave the genitive of Pliny's name as 'Liparidis\ There was no evidence whatsoever for 
this: it was nothing more than a lexicographer's guess, and an incorrect one. It is 
regrettable that it has misled people. 

LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 is grammatically correct. " 

(2) P.K.Tubbs 

Executive Secretary, The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

According to Professor Cameron's comment above, the original spelling of the fish 
family name liparidae is correct. This is the form which has been in general use and 
which ichthyologists wish to retain. If this view is accepted there is no formal need for 
Commission action concerning it, but since there has been controversy over the spelling 
of the name it could be argued that the placing of liparidae Gill, 1861 on the Official 
List of Family-Group Names would be in the interest of stabilizing ichthyological 
nomenclature. 

As noted in Dr Vogt's original application (BZN 45: 130-131), and in comments 
which have been received from Drs B.A. Korotyaev and E.P. Nartshuk (Zoological 
Institute, Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., Leningrad) and Dr H. Silfverberg 
(Zoological Museum, Helsinki, Finland), at least three homonymous family-group 
names occur in the entomological literature. These are: (i) in Lepidoptera, liparini 
Boisduval, 1834 (p. 134; also spelled liparidini), 'invalid' (cf. Article 39 of the Code) 
because the name of the type genus Liparis Ochsenheimer, 1810 is a junior homonym; 
(ii) in Coleoptera, liparidae Pierce, 1919 (p. 23; also an unavailable 'liparides' 
mentioned by Latreille, 1829), based on Liparus Ohvier, 1807 and occasionally used at 
tribe rank; (iii) in Diptera, liparini Nartshuk, 1987 (p. 224), based on Lipara Meigen, 
1830. The first two of these raise complications of a purely nomenclatural kind. The 
name liparini Boisduval, 1843 is not in use, but it might be held that it disqualifies 



298 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



LiPARiDAE Gill, 1861 by reason of homonymy within the family-group. It would seem 
undesirable that a family-group name which was little used and which can never be 
used again should be regarded as threatening a generally accepted but junior homonym 
[for a comment on homonymous family names when one is based on a suppressed 
generic name see BZN 47: 167]. In Coleoptera, there is a junior objective synonym 
(unnecessary replacement name) of Liparus, i.e. Molytes Schoenherr, 1823, on which 
was based 'molytides' Schoenherr, 1823 (col. 1 143). Although Molytes itself has not 
been used, molytinae Schoenherr, 1823 has had limited recent use at subfamily or tribe 
rank (Kuschel, 1987; Zherichin, 1987); this was because Liparus is classified within the 
well-known hylobiinae W. Kirby, 1837, the name of which is junior to molytinae. 
There is no doubt a case for conserving hylobiinae. 

Drs Korotyaev and Nartshuk (see above) have suggested that the dipteran family- 
group name liparini Nartshuk, 1987 could be emended to liparaini if this were 
necessary to avoid homonymy. 

Dr Vogt's application (BZN 45: 130-131) was concerned solely to protect the spell- 
ing of the fish family name liparidae Gill, 1861 . According to Professor Cameron this 
original form is the correct speUing: since it is in wide use and since no confusion is likely 
between it and the insect family-group names there is little reason to alter its spelling. 
Because there has been controversy over the spelling during the past decade it is 
appropriate to ask the Commission to place liparidae Gill, 1861 on the Official List of 
Generic Names, as Dr Vogt has done. There is clearly a need to consider the (junior) 
family-group names based on Liparus and Lipara (and the availability of liparini 
Boisduval), but I suggest that this can be done in due course without adding delay to Dr 
Vogt's case. 

Additional references 

Boisduval, J.B.A. 1834. Icones historiques des Lepidopteres..., vol. 2. 192 pp., 37 pis. Roret, Paris. 
Kuschel, G. 1987. The subfamily Molytinae (Coleoptera, Curculionidae): general notes and 

description of new taxa from New Zealand and Chile. New Zealand Entomologist, 9: 1 1-29. 
Pierce, W.D. 1919. Contributions to our knowledge of the weevils of the superfamily 

Curculionoidea. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 21: 21-36. 
Schoenherr, C.J. 1823. Tabula synoptica familiae Curculionidum. Vorbericht uber die 

Monographic derselben. Isis (von Oken), Jena, 1823: col. 1 132-1 146. 
Zherichin, V.V. 1987. Curculionidae from Nepal Himalayas. Part 1. Molytinae (Insecta: 

Coleoptera). Stuttgarter Beitrdge zur Naturkunde, (A), 1987: 411^54. 



Comment on the proposed precedence of Rana sphenocephala Cope, 1886 (Amphibia, 
Anura) over R. utricularius Harlan, 1826 

(Case 2141; see BZN 47: 283-285) 

David M. Hillis 

Department of Zoology , The University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712-1064, U.S.A. 

I wholeheartedly support the suggested course of action, and I hope this matter can 
be resolved quickly. The name Rana sphenocephala should be given precedence over 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 299 . 

Rana utricularius in the interest of stability; sphenocephala has been used consistently 
for the last century whereas utricularius was totally obscure. I agree that not suppress- 
ing utricularius is a good idea, in case future work shows support for the division within 
sphenocephala suggested by Pace. However, no such division is currently recognized. It 
is important to preserve the name Rana sphenocephala for the southern leopard frog, 
one of the most common frogs of the southeastern United States. I hope action by the 
Commission will be rapid so as to prevent further confusion. 



300 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1 990 

OPINION 1622 



Heliastes ovalis Steindachner, 1900 (currently Chromis oralis; 
Osteichthyes, Perciformes): specific name conserved 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name ovalis Steindachner, 1900, as pub- 
lished in the binomen Heliastes ovalis, is hereby ruled not to be invalid by reason of 
having been rejected before 1961 as a junior secondary homonym of Chromis ovalis 
Steindachner, 1866. 

(2) The name ovalis Steindachner, 1 900, as published in the binomen Heliastes ovalis 
(not invalid despite having been rejected before 1961 as a junior secondary homonym), 
is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

History of Case 2681 

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Chromis ovalis 
(Steindachner, 1900) was received from Drs W.I. Follett (California Academy of 
Sciences, San Francisco, U.S.A.) & John E. Randall (Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, 
Honolulu, U.S.A.) on 29 August 1988. After correspondence the case was pubUshed in 
BZN 46: 35-37 (March 1989). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No 
comments were received. 

The serial volume in which Steindachner's paper was published, which included the 
name Heliastes ovalis (p. 502), is dated 1901. However, the paper appeared earlier, in 
1900, as a separate entity ('Besonders Abgedruckt'); it was there paginated both as a 
separate item and as for inclusion in the serial. H. ovalis appears on p. '20 [502]'. 

The inclusion of pp. '316-318' in the Steindachner (1901) reference cited on p. 37 of 
the application should be omitted. 

Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 46: 36. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1990 the 
votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, 
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, WiUink 

Negative votes — none. 

Schuster was on leave of absence. 

Original reference 

The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given 
in the present Opinion: 

ovalis, Heliastes, F. Steindachner, 1900, Denkschriften der Mathematisch-naturwissenschaft- 
lichen Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften Wien, 70 (for 1901), p. 502 (p. 20 
in the separate issued in 1900). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 • 301. 

AUTHORS IN VOLUME 47 (1990) 





Page 




I ' Page 


Abbott, R.T. . . . 


' ■ : ■' . 202 


Gentry, Alan 


. 51 


Alonso-Zarazaga, M.A. 


.213 


Gentry, Anthea . . . 


- 38,203,263 


Axtell, R.C. 


... ■ ' . 212 


Giannuzzi-Savelli, R. . 


. ■ . 203, 263 






Gibson, G. 


. 134 


Baba, K 


. 291 


Gordon, M.E. . 


. 19 


Backeljau, T. . . . 


. 270 


Goujet, D. . 


. . . 139 


Becker, R.T. 


. 124 


Gould, S.J. 


. . 88 


Belk, D 


. " . 178 






Beu, A.G 


9 


Hahn.G. . 


. 114 


Blackith, R.E. . 


. 187 


Halliday, R.B. . 


. 24 


Bogan, A.E. 


. ■ . 206 


Harrison, B.A. . 


. 294 


Borowiec, L. . . . 


.117 


Harvey, M.S. 


. 22, 176 


Bouchet, P. . ; . 


12, 139, 202 


Heppell, D. 


. 210,254 


Bour, R 


. 139 


Hieronimus, H. . 


. 277 


Bowen, S.T. 


. 178 


Hillis, D.M. 


. 298 


Bowman, T.E. . 


292 


Hodgson, C. 


. 48 


Brauckmann, C. 


. 293 


Hoeksema, B.W. 


6 


Bridges, C.A. 


. 184 


Holthuis, L.B. . 


46, 129, 288,292 


Brown, L.E. . . . 


. 283 


Huber, J. . 


. 134 


Brunckhorst, D.J. 


. . 289 


Hugot.J.P. . 


. 139 


Brusca, R.C. 


- .• . . 213 






Burn, R. . . . . 


.288 


Jansson, A. . . 


9 


Burridge, M.E. . . ' . 


. . .118 










Kadolsky, D. . ; . 


. 101 


Cameron, H.D. . 


. 296 


Kahlke, H.D. . 


. 51 


Chambers, S. . . . 


. 125,210 


Kershaw, R.C. . 


. 258 


Chiappe, L.M. . 


. 198 


Kormilev, N.A. . 


. 30 


Clarke, A.H. . 


. .205 


Kottelat, M. 


. 295 


Cocks, L.R.M. . 


. 274 


Kuck, H.G. . ■ , 


. 27 


Cooper, R.A. 


. 139 


Kudrna, 0. 


. 130 


Crosskey, R.W. . 


. 48 






Currant, A. P. 


. . 52 


LaSalle, J. . 


. 137 






Lazara, K.J. 


. 191 


Danzig, E.M. 


. 127 


Levi, H.W. 


. 211 


Davis, G.M. . . 


. 104 


Lister, A.M. . . 


. 38 


Dubois, A. . 


. 139 


Liu,J.Y. . 


. 292 






Lotto, G. De . 


. 47 


Emberton, K.C. 


. 204 






Engel, B.A. 


. .293 


Mackie, A. . . 


. 125 


Etnier, D.A. . . 


. 280 


Martin, J.W. 


. 27 






Merrett, N. 




Feldmann, R.M. 


. 290 


Miller, J.Y. 


. 184 


Ferraris, C. . . . 


. 118 


Miller, L.D. 


. 184 


Forest, J. . 


. 212 


Mordan, P.B. . 


. 110 


Fricke, R 


. 50 


Morris, S.F. . . 


. 293 


Froeschner, R.C. 


. 30 




. . . .. 286 


Frost, D 


. 124 


Newton, A.F. 


Fuller, S.L.H. . 


. 206 


Ng, P.K.L. 


.45 


Funk, R.S. 


. 283 


Nielsen, L.T. 


. 294 


Garcia, R 


. 294 


Olson, S.L. . ■- . 


... 296 


Garutt,W.E. . 


. 38 


Oniki,Y. . ; ... 


. ^ . .19$ 



302 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



Perrin, W.F. 


. 32 


Strickman, D. 


. 216 


Petersen, M.E. . 


. 207 


Stubblefield, Sir J. 


. 216 


Pierre, J. . 


. 139 






Pleijel, F. . 


. 125 


Thayer, M.K. 


. 286 


Poore, G.C.B. . 


. 291 


Thompson, F.C. 


. 132,139 






Tillier, S. . 


. 139 


Randall, J.E. 


. 295 


Tremewan, W.G. 


. 131 


Raven, R.J. 


. 126 


Tubbs, P.K. 


45, 128, 131,214, 297 


Reisen, W.K. . 


. 293 






Reissinger, E.J. . 


. 129 


Viggiani, G. 


. 135 


Rognes, K. 


. 187 






Rosen, D. . 


. 136 


Wagener, S. 


. 129 


Rosenberg, G. . 


. 104, 204 


Ward, R.A. 


. 295 


Rudman, W.B. . 


. 289 


Warren, M.L. . 


. 280 






Webb, R.G. 


. 122 


Scott, R.W. 


. 205 


Wheeler, A. 


48,97,138 


Sher, A.V. . 


. 51 


White, G.B. 


. 211,214,215 


Siebert, D.J. 


. 118 


White, I.M. 


. 133 


Smith, B.J. 


. 258 


Whittington, H.B. 


. 216 


Smith, H.M. . 


. 283 


Winiams,A.B. . 


. 292 


Smith, M.L. 


. 191 


Williams, J.D. . 


. 206 


Soria, M.F. 


. 198 


Willis, E.O. 


. 195 


Steinhauser, S.R. 


. 184 


Woodward, F.R. 


. 110 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



303 



NAMES AND WORKS PLACED ON OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES IN 
RULINGS OF THE COMMISSION PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 47 (1990) 

Names placed on the Official Lists and Indexes in Volume 47 are listed below under 
three headings: Family-Group Names, Generic Names and Specific Names. Entries on 
the Official Lists are in bold type and those on the Official Indexes in non-bold type and 
italicised. Titles are given of one work placed on the Official List and one work placed 
on the Official Index of Works. The Opinion number is given for each entry. 

Family-Group Names - J . 

ALEUROPTERYGlNAEEnderlein, 1905 (Neuroptera) Op. 1595 /- 
BODOTRiiDAE Scott, 1901 (Cumacea) Op. 1592 
CENOBITIDAE Dana, 1851 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1575 
COENOBITIDAE Dana, 1851 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1575 - '-r 
EPICRIIDAE Fitzinger, 1843 (Amphibia) Op. 1604 ■ ' 

ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968 (Amphibia) Op. 1604 - i 

LEUCONIDAE Sars, 1878 (Cumacea) Op. 1594 / r • 

LUCICUTIIDAE Sars, 1902 (Copepoda) Op. 1613 '• ■ 

SACCOPHARYNGIDAE Bleeker, 1859 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1603 . .. 

SPHAEROMATIDAE Latreille, 1825 (Isopoda) Op. 1574 - ■ . - • . ■ 

STYLEPHORlDAESwainson, 1839 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1603 
TRAPEZIDAE Lamy, 1920 (Bivalvia) Op. 1615 a • 

TRAPEZiiDAE Miers, 1886 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1615 , . ■ ; ' 

Generic Names 

Aleuropteryx Low, 1885 (Neuroptera) Op. 1595 
/iwWoi/owRafinesque, 1819 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1582 
Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1584 
Berosus Leach, 1817 (Coleoptera) Op. 1577 
Bodotria Goodsir, 1843 (Cumacea) Op. 1592 

Calcarina d'Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1569 . . , 

Cara>?/o« Jarocki, 1825 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1575 
Ce«o^/ra Milne Edwards (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1575 

Ce«o6;7e5 Berthold, 1827 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1575 _ . . , 

Coenobita Latreille, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1575 ■ , . 

Coryphium Stephens, 1834 (Coleoptera) Op. 1597 . ' . 

Cwma Humphrey, 1797 (Cumacea) Op. 1592 
Cwwfl Milne Edwards, 1828 (Cumacea) Op. 1592 
Dendritina d'Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1570 
Z)re/7fl«/re^Benett, 1831 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1609 

Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1609 " 
£p/mwm Wagler, 1828 (Amphibia) Op. 1604 
EponidesdeMontfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1572 

jErew/m Osbeck, 1765 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1575 ., > . ■ - 

i'wroposp/zaeraVerhoeff, 1943 (Isopoda) Op. 1574 > v 

FizesereneiaTakeda&Tamura, 1980 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1591 

Hon7i«deMontfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1568 - ■ ' 

Gaussia Wolfenden, 1905 (Copepoda) Op. 1590 

Halia Bate, 1856 (Cumacea) Op. 1593 

Hanzawaia Asano, 1944 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1568 

HarpognathusWesma.d, 1834 (Coleoptera) Op. 1597 

HarpognatusWesm&d, 1833 (Coleoptera) Op. 1597 

Hydrobius Leach, 1815 (Coleoptera) Op. 1577 

Hydrolycus Muller & Troschel, 1 844 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1581 



304 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



Hyphoplites Spath, 1922 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1609 

Ichthyophis Fitzinger, 1826 (Amphibia) Op. 1604 

Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1582 

/cno/-M5 Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1582 

IphinoeBate, 1856 (Cumacea) Op. 1593 

Iphinoe H. & A. Adams, 1845 (Gastropoda) Op. 1593 

Iphinoe Rafinesque, 1815 (Araneae) Op. 1 593 

Isochaeta G'\eshx&c\ii, 1889 (Copepoda) Op. 1613 

Lekanesphaera Verhoeff, 1943 (Isopoda) Op. 1574 

Leucon Kr0yer, 1 846 (Cumacea) Op. 1594 

Leucon Schoenherr, 1834 (Coleoptera) Op. 1594 

L/«//!Mm de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1571 

Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898 (Copepoda) Op. 1613 

Marssonopora Lang, 1914 (Bryozoa) Op. 1608 

Nonionde Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1567 

Nonionina d'Orbigny, 1 826 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1 568 

Ophonus Dejean, 1821 (Coleoptera) Op. 1598 

OrbitoUna d'Orbigny, 1850 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1587 

Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1621 

Palorbitolina Schroeder, 1963 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1587 

Pelorusde Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1570 

Planularia Defrance, 1826 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1571 

Planularia Nihson, 1826 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1571 

Protocalliphora Hough, 1899 (Diptera) Op. 1618 

Protophormia Townsend, 1908 (Diptera) Op. 1618 

Ptochus Schoenherr, 1826 (Coleoptera) Op. 1616 

Pylodictis Rafinesque, 1819 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1584 

Rhogalia Hiibner, [1825] (Lepidoptera) Op. 1617 

Rosema Walker, 1855 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1617 

Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1603 

Scorpaenichthys Girard, 1854 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1583 

Semblis Fabricius, 1775 (Trichoptera) Op. 1596 

Semeioptera Gray, 1859 (Aves) Op. 1606 

Semioptera Gray, 1859 (Aves) Op. 1606 

Sialis Latreille, 1802 (Megaloptera) Op. 1596 

Sphaeroma Bosc, 1802 (Isopoda) Op. 1574 

Stylephorus Shaw, 1791 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1603 

Tachys Dejean, 1821 (Coleoptera) Op. 1598 

Thorius Cope, 1869 (Amphibia) Op. 1605 

Tinoporusde Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1569 

Trapecia Berthold, 1827 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1614 

Trapezia Latreille, 1828 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1614 

Trapezium Megerle von Muhlfeld, 1811 (Bivalvia) Op. 1615 

Uroctea Dufour, 1820 (Cumacea) Op. 1593 

Valanginites Sayn in Kilian, 1910 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1610 

Venilia Bate, 1856 (Cumacea) Op. 1593 

Zelica Hiibner, [1825] (Lepidoptera) Op. 1617 

Specific Names 

albescens, Astacus, Pennant, 1812 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1576 
albosignatus, Heliophanus, Koch, 1867 (Araneae) Op. 1611 
ampullaceus, Ophiognathus, Harwood, 1827 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1603 
angusticolle, Coryphium, Stephens, 1834 (Coleoptera) Op. 1597 
arbuscula, Dendritina, d'Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1570 
arenosa, Bodotria, Goodsir, 1843 (Cumacea) Op. 1592 
auris, Peneropiis, Defrance, 1824 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1571 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



azurea, Musca, Fallen, 1817 (Diptera) Op. 1 6 1 8 

beadlei, Hapalorhynchus, Goodman, 1987 (Trematoda) Op. 1588 .■ 
bicinctaflava, Tenthredo, Christ, 1791 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1602 ■, ■ • 
bicirrhosum, 'Ischnosoma', Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1621 :. . • i 

borneensis, Tarentola, Gray, 1845 (Reptilia) Op. 1585 

brantsii, Euryoris, Smith, 1834 (Mammalia) Op. 1586 , ,■ ; ; 

6rev;>ew/5, P/iy/Zoi/oce, de Quatrefages, 1865 (Polychaeta) Op. 1 589 ' 

bubalus, Catostomus, Rafinesque, 1818 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1582 

carthami, Papilio, Hiibner, [1813] (Lepidoptera) Op. 1 599 - :■ . 

chordatus, Stylephorus, Shaw, 1791 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1603 • ■ 

clypeatus, Pagurus, Fabricius, 1787 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1575 

concava, Orbulites, Lamarck, 1816 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1587 

co«g/oZ>fl/or, 0«;5C«5, Pallas, 1766 (Isopoda) Op. 1574 , , 

conyzae, Euribia, Hering, 1933 (Diptera) Op. 1619 

cymodoce. Cancer, Herbst, 1801 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1614 

densispina, Membranipora, Levinsen, 1925 (Bryozoa) Op. 1608 

domesticus, Mus musculus, Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943 (Mammalia) Op. 1607 

domesticus, Mus, Rutty, 1772 (Mammalia) Op. 1607 

dorsalis, Rosema, Walker, 1855 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1617 ' ' . 

dubius, Cordylodus, Rhodes, 1953 (Conodonta) Op. 1580 

dutemplei, Pentetagonaster, (i.''Orh\gr\y,\?>50 {AsitroxAQd.) Op. \519 ■ 

edwardsii, Palaemon, Heller, 1863 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1576 

epigena, Phalaena, Stoll, [1790] (Lepidoptera) Op. 1617 

exiguus, Graptolites lobiferus (3, Nicholson, 1868 (Graptolithina) Op. 1620 

exiguus, Monograptus, Lapworth, 1876 (Graptolithina) Op. 1620 

faba. Nautilus, Fichtel & Moll, 1798 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1567 

falcatus. Ammonites, Mantell, 1822 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1609 - 

flavicornis, Leuckartia, Claus, 1863 (Copepoda) Op. 1613 , 

fuscipes, Dytiscus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1577 

gigas, Ascalobotes, Bocage, 1875 (Reptilia) Op. 1585 

globator, Omscus,Va\\as, 1772 (Isopoda) Op. 1574 . . 

glutinosa, Caecilia, Linnaeus, 1758 (Amphibia) Op. 1604 

guttatus, Attus, Thorell, 1875 (Araneae) Op. 1612 

heimi, Troglocarcinus, Fize & Serene, 1956 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1 591 

hookeri, Sphaeroma, Leach, 1814 (Isopoda) Op. 1574 

hyatti, Arpadites (Drepanites), Mojsisovics, 1893 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1609 

illibatus, Attus, Simon, 1868 (Araneae) Op. 1612 

/«e^Ma/(/>e5, Simon, 1868 (Araneae) Op. 1612 , 

jaceana, Euribia, Hering, 1935 (Diptera) Op . 1619 

javanica, Eremita, Osbeck, 1765 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1575 

kochii, Heliophanus, Simon, 1868 (Araneae) Op. 1611 

lenticularis, Madreporites, Blumenbach, 1 805 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1587 

Umax, Madrepora, Esper, 1797 (Anthozoa) Op. 1573 

//wax, Mflt/re/7ora, Houttuyn, 1772 (Anthozoa) Op. 1573 

loewii, Aleuropteryx, Klapalak, 1894 (Neuroptera) Op. 1595 

longiremis, Pseudaugaptilus, Sars, 1907 (Copepoda) Op. 1613 

longirostris, Palaemon, Milne Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1576 

longirostris, Palaemon, Milne Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1576 

longisetosus, Isochaeta, Thompson, 1903 (Copepoda) Op. 1613 

luridus, Dytiscus, Linnaeus, 1761 (Coleoptera) Op. 1577 

lutarius, Hemerobius, Linnaeus, 1758 (Megaloptera) Op. 1596 

magnificus, Pycinaster, Spencer, 1913 (Asteroidea) Op. 1579 . • 

maior, Papilio malvae, Fabricius, 1787 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1599 ^ 

major, Syrichthus serratulae, Staudinger, 1879 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1599 

marmoratus, Hemitripteras, Ayres, 1854 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1583 



306 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



melanotica, Gaussia, Wolfenden, 1905 (Copepoda) Op. 1590 

monodi, Sphaeroma, Arcangeli, 1934 (Isopoda) Op. 1574 

nasica, Cuma, Kroyer, 1841 (Cumacea) Op. 1594 

natalis, Pimelodus, Lesueur, 1819 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1584 

nipponica, Hanzawaia, Asano, 1944 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1568 

nucleus. Ammonites, Phillips, 1829 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1610 

nucleus, Ammonites, Roemer, 1841 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1610 

oblonga, Chama, Linnaeus, 1758 (Bivalvia) Op. 1615 

olivaris, Silurus, Rafinesque, 1818 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1584 

orbata, Tachina, Wiedemann, 1830 (Diptera) Op. 1600 

ovalis, Heliastes, Steindachner, 1900 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1622 

penicillatus, Attus, Simon, 1875 (Araneae) Op. 1612 

pennatribus, Thorius, Cope, 1869 (Amphibia) Op. 1605 

pennatulus, Thorius, Cope, 1869 (Amphibia) Op. 1605 

phalaenoides, Phryganea, Linnaeus, 1758 (Trichoptera) Op. 1596 

porcellus, Ptochus, Boheman in Schoenherr, 1834 (Coleoptera) Op. 1616 

princeps, Pleuromma, Scott, 1894 (Copepoda) Op. 1590 

quinquemaculata, Uroctea, Dufour, 1820 (Cumacea) Op. 1593 

repandus, Nautilus, Fichtel & Moll, 1798 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1572 

robynsii, Harpognatus, Wesmael, 1833 (Coleoptera) Op. 1597 

rubiginosa, Phyllodoce (Carobia), Saint-Joseph, 1888 (Polychaeta) Op. 1589 

ruspatrix, Vespa, Linnaeus, 1767 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1578 

sabulicola, Carabus, Panzer, 1796 (Coleoptera) Op. 1598 

scomberoides, Hydrocyon, Cuvier, 1819 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1581 

scotti, Metridia, Giesbrecht, 1897 (Copepoda) Op. 1590 

scutellaris, Tachys, Stephens, 1828 (Coleoptera) Op. 1598 

serratus, Astacus, Pennant, 1777 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1576 

serratus, Oniscus, Fabricius, 1787 (Isopoda) Op. 1574 

spengleri. Nautilus, Gmelin, 1791 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1569 

spinosum, Astacoderma, Harley, 1861 (Conodonta) Op. 1580 

striatus, Drepanites, Benett, 1831 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1609 

styliferus, Palaemon, Milne Edwards, 1840 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1576 

talpa, Madrepora, Houttuyn, 1772 (Anthozoa) Op. 1573 

talpina, Fungia, Lamarck, 1801 (Anthozoa) Op. 1573 

terraenovae, Phormia, Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Diptera) Op. 1618 

triangulum, Vespa, Fabricius, 1775 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1578 

trilinguis, Madrepora, Boddaert, 1768 (Anthozoa) Op. 1573 

trispinosa, Cuma, Goodsir, 1843 (Cumacea) Op. 1593 

vandellii, Osteoglossum, Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1621 

vigil, Arctomys, Thunberg, 1811 (Mammalia) Op. 1586 

wallacei, Paradisaea ( Semeioptera) , Gray, 1859 (Aves) Op. 1606 

wallacii, Paradisaea (Semeioptera), Gray, 1859 (Aves) Op. 1606 

zelica, Phalaena, Stoll, [1790] (Lepidoptera) Op. 1617 

zonula, Tenthredo, Klug, 1817 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1602 

Work placed on the Official List of Available Works 

Benett, E. 1831.^ catalogue of the organic remains of the County of Wilts. Op. 1 609 
Work placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works 

Academic Royale des Sciences de I'lnstitut de France. 1826. Rapport sur les Myodaires du 
Docteur Robineau Desvoidy (H.M.D. de Blainville, Rapporteur) Op. 1601 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 " 307 

KEY NAMES IN APPLICATIONS AND COMMENTS 

(for names in Rulings of the Commission see pages 303-306) 

I Page 

^(:a«?/!o/7/2//2a/mMS van Hasselt /« Temminck, 1824 (Osteichthyes) . . . . . . . ' . 118 

Acantophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1 823 (Osteichthyes) 118 

acM?MArj, Cvc/o5fowa, Draparnaud, 1805 (Gastropoda) 104 

fl/a?Mj, i7/3/o. Say, 1817 (Bivalvia) , 19,205 

a//acar/e«j/s, Co/;fl5, Ribbe, 1905 (Lepidoptera) 129 

a/gm>e«5/5, QJ/co/<ie5, Strobl, 1900 (Diptera) 48,215 

a/wraceMi', Carcwoc/jefc, Handlirsch, 1897 (Heteroptera) 30 

anarwMj, Mv'?;7w5, Linnaeus, 1758 (Bivalvia) 110 

y4«gM///aSchrank, 1798 (Osteichthyes) 138 

a«g-M5?z«, /.x'0(/e5, Neumann, 1899 (Acari) 211 

^/i/zo«o/?e/wfl Pocock, 1901 (Araneae) 126,211 

/irf/!zywWo«PohHg, 1888 (Proboscidea) 38,51 

fl«e«Ma?MS, 5/e«o, Gray, 1846 (Cetacea) 32 

flMn'5?wa/c/z/, //e//.v, Miiller, 1774 (Gastropoda) .... . . . ..... 15 

flwnYwj, La^)rj«, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes) . . . . .■ . ; . 280 

Co//a5, Verity, 191 1 (Lepidoptera) . . : 129 

5a/iYora Gray, 1830 (Osteichthyes) 277 

BALiTORiDAE Swainson, 1839 (Osteichthyes) 277 

barbata. Helix (Helicigona), Ferussac, 1832 (Gastropoda) 101 

Bathynomus Milne Edwards, 1879 (Isopoda) 27, 212, 290 

BiTHYNiiDAE Gray, 1857 (Gastropoda) . . . . . - . . . . 104 

5o//W/a Reed, 1943 (Trilobita) ' . . :. ' . . . . ; . . 114,216,293 

fiore/w de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) . . . .^^ 45 

^ovz>7M5, .fiw/;/?!!W, Bruguiere, 1792 (Gastropoda) 202 

Z?rev/ma«w5, Wagner, 1846 (Cetacea) 32 

^rwce/, 5a//?ora, Gray, 1830 (Osteichthyes) 277 

Carc/«oc/ze//5 Fieber, 1861 (Heteroptera) 30 

Cfln«a/-/o« Hesse, 1926 (Gastropoda) 270 

cflr«/vora, A/M5ca, Fabricius, 1794 (Diptera) . . . . • . . 187 

carrer/, /"a/aega. Woodward, 1870 (Isopoda) .... :, \. 27,290 

r/oro/7Mj, Cwrrw//o, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) . . . . -. 213 

Cocco^/M5 Ratzeburg, 1852 (Hymenoptera) ; 134 

coj^eoe, Leca«zww, Walker, 1852 (Homoptera) 47 

co/eopZraro, S;gara, Fabricius, 1777 (Heteroptera) 9 

cowp/anara, /4«(9t/o«/a, Rossmassler, 1835 (Bivalvia) 110 

CM/)e«5/s, Lv5/a«a.x, Stebbing, 1897 (Amphipoda) 213 

cuvieri, Helixarion, Ferussac, 1821 (Gastropoda) 258 

Mv///w5, Linnaeus, 1758 (Bivalvia) . . . ... . . . . 110 

Cvwa//a Flor, 1860 (Heteroptera) 9 

CYMATIAINAE Wahon /« Hutchinson, 1940 (Heteroptera) 9 

CYMATiiNAE Iredale, 1913 (1854) (Gastropoda) 9 

CYMATiiNAE Walton in Hutchinson, 1940 (Heteroptera) . : • . . '. .: . 9 

Cywa/zMw [Roding], 1798 (Gastropoda) ..... . > r , . 9 

Z)a//aMabille, 1904(Lepidoptera) .■ : 184 

i/e«?a?w5, C/!e/fl«o/?5, Banks, 1895 (Pseudoscorpionida) . . . : . 22 

t/racM«cw/M5, Ca///o«j^wjM5, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes) 48 

e/o«gfl/a, Fo/wra, Lightfoot, 1 786 (Gastropoda) 15 

erj^o^fli, Cyc/op/i/e5, Hewitson, 1877 (Lepidoptera) 184 



308 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



erythrocephala, Musca, Meigen, 1^26 (Diptera) 187 

ew/m, CoccyzMj, Cabanis, 1873 (A ves) 195 

Eumesia Felder & Felder, [1867] (Lepidoptera) 184 

EUMESiiDAE Felder & Felder, [ 1 867] (Lepidoptera) 1 84 

/ewora/e, Mwrex, Linnaeus, 1758 (Gastropoda) 9 

/ern7/5, .4r?em/fl, Verrill, 1869 (Branchiopoda) 178 

fibratus, Limax, Martyn, 1784 (Gastropoda) 15, 202 

fon5co/owZ)/a Lichtenstein, 1877 (Homoptera) 127 

/ra«cwca«fl, ^rrewjfl, Kellogg, 1906 (Branchiopoda) 178 

freycineti, Helixarion, Ferussac, 1821 (Gastropoda) 258 

Fryeria Gray, 1853 (Gastropoda) 288 

giganteus, Bathynomus, Milne Edwards, \S19 (Isopoda) 27,290 

globiceps, Asaphus, Phillips, 1836 (Trilobita) 1 14, 216, 293 

grad/w, .4rfem/fl, Verrill, 1869 (Branchiopoda) 178 

gram/«/5, Fo«5co/omZjza, Lichtenstein, 1877 (Homoptera) 127 

gram/nw, ryc/zea, Koch, 1857 (Homoptera) 127 

Griffithides Portlock, 1 843 (Trilobita) 1 1 4, 2 1 6, 293 

^rfeww, Thompson, 1834 (Branchiopoda) 178 

/fflwmaea Leach, [1820] (Gastropoda) 263 

HAMiNAEiDAEPilsbry, 1895 (Gastropoda) 263 

//awz'/jeo Gray, 1847 (Gastropoda) 263 

HAMiNEiDAE Pilsbry, 1895 (Gastropoda) 263 

[Turton] m Turton & Kingston zrt Carrington, 1830 (Gastropoda) .... 263 

hebraea, Nerita, Martyn, 1786 (Gastropoda) 15, 202 

/2e/e«a, A/wraewa, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes) 138 

/fe//can'o« Ferussac, 1 82 1 (Gastropoda) 258 

HELiCARiONiDAE Bourgui gnat, 1883 (Gastropoda) 258 

Helixarion Ferussac, 1 82 1 (Gastropoda) 258 

HELiXARiONiDAEBourguignat, 1883 (Gastropoda) 258 

Aeracto, Mw^ca, Linnaeus, 1758 (Diptera) 132 

/2erac//7, MM5ca, Linnaeus, 1758 (Diptera) 132 

HETEROPTERiNAEAurivillius, 1925 (Lepidoptera) 184 

Homaloptera van Hasselt in Temminck, 1 823 (Osteichthyes) 277 

HOMALOPTERiDAE Bleeker, 1859 (Osteichthyes) 277 

/iorfenjw, y4no«, Ferussac, 1819 (Gastropoda) 270 

/ijc/flZw, Linnaeus, 1758 (Gastropoda) 263 

J^ji/rofew Hartmann, 1821 (Gastropoda) 104 

HYDROBiiDAE Troschel, 1857 (Gastropoda) 104, 286 

Ajj/nX i-epz7/ome«/a, Marion & Kowalevsky //I Fischer, 1885 (Solenogastres) .... 254 

imbricata, Aphrodita,lArmaQus,\l 61 (?o\yc\\ae.\.a) 207 

Cocc^'ZMi', Lawrence, [1864] (A ves) 195 

Kobeltia Seibert, 1873 (Gastropoda) 270 

Aiw/z/n, Cotow, Cuvier& Valenciennes, 1846 (Osteichthyes) 118 

La/-«aM(5?/a Bott, 1966 (Crustacea, Decapoda) 45 

(//e&zgowa), Ferussac, 1832 (Gastropoda) 101 

Lep/(iowe«/a Kowalevsky Brock, 1883 (Solenogastres) 254 

lepidota, Aphrodita, Pallas, 1766 (Polychaeta) 207 

Lepomw Rafinesque, 1819 (Osteichthyes) 280 

LzW/zo/m/o/a Hesse, 1931 (Gastropoda) 101 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 . ' 309 

LiPARiDAE Gill, 1861 (Osteichthyes) 296 

LiPARiDAE Pierce, 1919 (Coleoptera) . . . . . . . . . . . 296 

LIPARINI Boisduval, 1834 (Lepidoptera) . . . . - . . f . , . . .. \ . . . . . 296 

LiPARiNi Nartshuk, 1987 (Diptera) . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . 296 

L/para Scopoli, 1777 (Osteichthyes) . . . . . . . . .- . 296 

LoZ?ac//s Verrill, 1864(Anthozoa) 6 

/o«g/ce/75, Gr#r/!/Je5, Portlock, 1843 (Trilobita) . . . . . . . . . . . 114,216,293 

longissimus, Phorusrhacos, ArcLeg\nno,\%%l (\yQs) . . . . . 198 

/wcraror, Lo«g/?ar5«5 flefMg/«05i«, Weise, 1893 (Coleoptera) . ... . , . . . . 117 

Mflmww?/zM5 Brookes, 1828 (Proboscidea) . . . . . . . 38 

mormorarwi, i?/vH/M5, Poey, 1880 (Osteichthyes) . . . . . . . . . \. ... . . . 191 

me/o, 5ore//5, Fichtel & Moll, 1798 (Foraminiferida) . . . . . . . . .. ... . 45 

mmW/ona//s, £'/e/7/ja5, Nesti, 1825 (Proboscidea) 38,51 

MESODONTIDAE Tryon, 1866 (Gastropoda) 204 

m/«w?a, Fabricius, 1780 (Polychaeta) ._. . 207 

M/roc/2er«es Beier, 1930 (Pseudoscorpionida) . 22 

Mwraewfl Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes) . . . . . 138 

Myn'oc/je/e Malmgren, 1867 (Polychaeta) .... ; . . ' . V . . . . » ' . . . 124 

oce//a/a, //owa/oprera, van der Hoeven, 1833 (Osteichthyes) . . . . .. . .... 277 

oce//a/M5, i?/vw/M5, Hensel, 1868 (Osteichthyes) . . . . . ./ . - . . ... . . 191 

Pfl/a<?ga Woodward, 1870 (Isopoda) 27,212,290 

C/!e///er, White, 1849 (Pseudoscorpionida) . . . . 176 

/^awwo^e^^w, Ft/«g/fl, Stutchbury, 1833 (Anthozoa) 6 

;?ew5, a</eA-, Speiser, 1904 (Diptera) . . . . ..... 215,293 

PHORORHACIDAE Ameghino, 1889 (Aves) . .. . . . ; . . . . _ . . 198 

P/!OTOr/!aco5 Ameghino, 1 889 (Aves) • 198 

PHORORHACOSiDAE Ameghino, 1889 (Aves) . . ... . . 198 

PHORUSRHACiDAE Brodkorb, 1963 (Aves) 198 

P/7orw5r/7flcoj Ameghino, 1 887 (Aves) ..... . . . 198 

P/ij'scMS Howard, 1895 (Hymenoptera) 134 

pitcheri, Texigryphaea, Morton, IS34 (Bivahia) 205 

P/flco5n'/w5 Beck, 1837 (Gastropoda) 15 

;?/a«t/m^o«fl, Hall, 1847 (Brachiopoda) 274 

P/ewracrw Verrill, 1864 (Anthozoa) . . . . . - . ... . , . .6 

POLYGYRiDAEPilsbry, 1894 (Gastropoda) 204 

Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818 (Bi valvia) 1 9, 205 

primigenius, Elephas, Blumenbach, 1799 (Proboscidea) 38, 51 

Proj^rera Rafinesque, 1819 (Bivalvia) 19,205 

pseudodelphis,Delphinus,Sch\Qgt\,\M\{CQi&ct&) 32 

/7M«cnco//w, Cj///co/i;?e5, Becker, 1903 (Diptera) 48,215 

Ca///o«vwiY5, Delaroche, 1809 (Osteichthyes) 48 

/'Mi'/w/oia, Frjm'fl, Gray, 1853 (Gastropoda) . . . . . . 288 

jOM5?M/osa, P/zv///^^/a, Cuvier, 1804 (Gastropoda) . . ...... , . . . . . . . 288 

i?flngM«a Bott, 1966 (Crustacea, Decapoda) . .... . . - . . .' . . ... 45 

i^/jec/zosr/ca Simon, 1892 (Araneae) . . . . . . 126,211 

7?/s5oa 'Freminville' Risso, 1813 (Gastropoda) 104 

i?/550fl Desmarest, 1814 (Gastropoda) . . . ...... . . . . . . . . 104 

RissoiDAE Gray, 1847 (Gastropoda) . . . i . . . . . . . . 104 

robustulus, Holostaspis suhbadius,Ber\Qse,\9<dA{KcairmdL) . . . . . ... . . 24,212 

robustulus, Macrocheles,BQr\ese,\90A{A.ca.r\m.) ' . . . . . . . . 24,212 

ros/rara, rej?wJo, Thunberg, 1787 (Reptilia, Testudines) . . . - . 122 

rubustulus, Holostaspis subbadius,'Bex\Qse.,\9Q)A{A.C2Lr'miL) . . .> . ..... 24,212 



310 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 



rueppelii, Fryeria, Bergh, \S69 (Gastropoda) 288 

rugosa, Strophomena, de Blainville, 1 825 (Brachiopoda) 274 

5'a/jje?/a Deplanche, 1859 (Homoptera) 47 

scutaria, Fungia, Lamarck, 1 80 1 (Anthozoa) 6 

S'/!oemaA;e/-e//a Pirlot, 1936 (Amphipoda) 213 

rno«>'x, Wiegmann, 1834 (Reptilia, Testudines) 122 

sphenocephala, Rana halecina. Cope, 1886 (Amphibia, Anura) 283, 298 

5?e«e//fl Gray, 1866 (Cetacea) 32 

i%mfl/050»ia, Cw/ex, Dyar, 1 907 (Diptera) 215,293 

Strophomena de Blainville, 1 825 (Brachiopoda) 274 

jMZ?c>'/zWnca, ^e//x, Linnaeus, 1767 (Gastropoda) 104 

symphiti, Longitarsus, Heikertinger, 1912 (Coleoptera) 117 

C/je/(/ef, With, 1907 (Pseudoscorpionida) 176 

r/zflte^oc/zerwe^ Beier, 1940 (Pseudoscorpionida) 176 

thriambus, Culex, Dyar, 1921 (Diptera) 215, 293 

rrM«ca?e//a Risso, 1826 (Gastropoda) 104 

TRUNCATELLiDAE Gray, 1 840 (Gastropoda) 104 

Tychea Koch, 1857 (Homoptera) 127 

Mfa/ze««5, ^rfewzfl, Lockington, 1876 (Branchiopoda) 178 

utricularius, Rana, Harlan, 1 826 (Amphibia, Anura) 283, 298 

velox, Delphinus, Cuvier, 1 829 (Cetacea) 32 

ve«?nco5a, i?w50fl, Desmarest, 1814 (Gastropoda) 104 

vzcma, Ca//zp/zora, Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Diptera) 187 

viridicollis, Curculio, Fabricius, 1 792 (Coleoptera) 213 

/J 

wooi/r, 7x0^/^5, Bishopp, 191 1 (Acari) 211 h 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 . 311 
CORRIGENDA 

Vol. 47, part 2 ' ■ ' " ' 

page 144, line 15 For ' Phyllodoce (Carobia) breviremis de 

Quatrefages, 1 865' read 'P/zv/Zoi/cce Caro/j/a j 
' ^ |, rwZ?/g/«05a Saint-Joseph, 1888' 

■ ' . ' " i ■' . . - ■ 



PUBLICATION DATES AND PAGINATION OF THE PRESENT 

VOLUME 



Part No. / Pages in Part Date of publication 

1 1-84 27 March 1990 

2 85-172 29 June 1990 

3 173-240 28 September 1990 

4 241-311 -20 December 1990 



INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDER 



The present volume should be bound up as follows: 
Title page. Table of Contents (I-VI), 1-311 
Note: the covers of the four parts should be bound with the volume 



Contents — continued 



Indexes, etc. 

Authors in volume 47 (1990) 301 

Names and Works placed on Official Lists and Indexes in rulings of the Commission 

pubhshed in volume 47 (1990) , . . 303 

Key names in Apphcations and Comments pubhshed in volume 47 (1990) .... 307 

Corrigenda 311 

Pubhcation dates and pagination of volume 47 (1990) ........... 311 

Instructions to binder . . . . . . . 311 

Table of Contents of volume 47 (1990) . . ........ . ... . . I 



INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS 

The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Commission; other 
authors should comply with the relevant sections. Recent parts of the Bulletin should be 
consulted as examples. 

Title. This should be written in lower case letters and include the names to be conserved. A 
specific name should be cited in the original binomen, with the current name in parentheses. 

Author's name. Full postal address should be given. 

.4Z>5?rac/. This will be prepared by the Commission's Secretariat. 

Text. Typed in double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs setting out the details 
of the case and leading to a final paragraph of formal proposals. Text references should give dates 
and page numbers in parentheses, e.g. 'Daudin (1800, p. 39) described . . . '. 

References. These should be given for all authors cited. The title of periodicals should be in full 
and be underlined; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arable figures, separated by a 
colon from page numbers. Book titles should be underlined and followed by the number of 
pages, the publisher and the place of publication. , 

Submission of application. Two copies should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, the Inter- 
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce the time that it takes to process 
the large number of applications received if the typescript could be accompanied by a disk with 
copy in ASCII text on IBM PC format 5.25 inch 360KB (preferable) or 1 .2MB, or 3.5 inch 1 .4MB 
floppy disk. Disks will be returned after copying. It would also be helpful if applications were 
accompanied by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references. 



CONTENTS 

Page 

Notices 241 

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature-Crustacea and MoUusca Offprints 242 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 242 

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology-Supplement 242 

Financial Report for 1989 244 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature — General Session of the 

Commission, University of Maryland, 4 July 1990 246 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature — Open Meeting of the 

Commission, University of Maryland, 5 July 1990 250 

Applications 

Lepidomenia Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883 (Mollusca, Solenogastres): proposed desig- 
nation of Lepidomenia hystrix Marion & Kowalevsky in Fischer, 1885 as the tyjDC 
species. D. Heppell 254 

Helicarion Ferussac, 1821 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation, and 
proposed designation of Helixarion cuvieri Ferussac, 1821 as the type species. B. J. 
Smith & R. C. Kershaw 258 

Haminaea Leach, [1820] (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation. R. 
Giannuzzi-Savelli & Anthea Gentry 263 

Kobeltia Seibert, 1873 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed confirmation of Arion 
hortensis Ferussac, 1819 as the type species. T. Backeljau 270 

Strophomena de Blainville, 1825 (Brachiopoda): proposed designation of Leptaena 
planumbona Hall, 1847 as the type species. L. R. M. Cocks 274 

HOMALOPTERiDAE Bleeker, 1859 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): proposed precedence 

over BALiTORiDAE Swainson, 1839. H. Hieronimus 277 

Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed fixation of masculine 
gender for the name. D. A. Etnier & M. L. Warren 280 

Rana sphenocephala Cope, 1886 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed precedence over Rana 

utricularius Harlan, 1826. L. E. Brown, H. M. Smith & R. S. Funk 283 

Comments 

On the proposed placement of hydrobiidae Troschel, 1 857 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) on 

the Official List of Family-Group Names. A. F. Newton & M. K. Thayer . . . . 286 
On the proposed conservation of Fryeria Gray, 1853 and F. rueppelii Bergh, 1869 

(Mollusca, Gastropoda). L. B. Holthuis; R. Burn; D. J. Brunckhorst & W. B. 

Rudman 288 

On the proposed precedence of Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 (Crustacea, 

Isopoda) over Palaega Woodward, 1870. R. M. Feldmann; G. C. B. Poore & K. 

Baba; J. Y. Liu; L. B. Holthuis; T. E. Bowman; A. B. Williams 290 

On the proposed conservation of Griffit hides Portlock. 1843 and Bollandia Reed, 1943 

(Trilobita). B. A. Engel; C. Brauckmann; S. F. Morris 293 

On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Culex stigmatosoma Dyar, 1907 

and C. thriambus Dyar, 1921 (Insecta, Diptera). W. K. Reisen; R. Garcia; L. T. 

Nielsen; B. A. Harrison; R. A. Ward 293 

On the stability of fish family names. M. Kottelat; J. E. Randall; S. L. Olson. . . . 295 
On the proposed confirmation of the spelling of liparidae Gill, 1861 (Osteichthyes, 

Scorpaeniformes). H. D. Cameron; P. K. Tubbs 296 

On the proposed precedence of Rana sphenocephala Cope, 1886 (Amphibia, Anura) 

over R. utricularius Harlan, 1 826. D. M. Hillis 298 

Ruling of the Commission 

Opinion 1622. Heliastes ovalis Steindachner, 1900 (currently Chromis ovalis; 

Osteichthyes, Perciformes): specific name conserved 300 

Continued on Inside Back Cover 



Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset 



Riley Dunn (Sr Wilson 

CONSERVATORS & BOOKBINOERS